In a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, a woman’s right to reside in her in-laws’ house was given under the domestic violence act. The matter of the right to a residence after the husband’s death was dealt with recently in the case of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi. The trial court heard the case, and they upheld the woman’s right to reside at her matrimonial residence. The judgment was reserved in an appeal to the High Court. The matter was decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had several questions of law to deal with. First, it must be determined whether a woman has the right to live on her in-laws’ property after her husband’s death. Second, whether that residence should be actual or constructive, Thirdly, is there a need for the same kind of relationship with the in-laws? Fourthly, whether there is any limitation period to claim this right.
Facts of the case
According to the aggrieved person, her marriage with Kuldeep Tyagi (since deceased) son of late Vishnudutt Tyagi was solemnized on 18th June 2005 at Haridwar District, Uttarakhand as per Hindu rites and rituals, and in connection with the marriage, the family members of the aggrieved person had given dowry to the family of her deceased husband and Stridhana to the aggrieved person. For the period immediately following the wedding, the aggrieved person was residing at the ancestral home of the respondents along with her mother-in-law-respondent no.1, two brothers-in-law, the wife of her husband’s elder brother, and six sisters-in-law. Thereafter, the aggrieved person began living with her husband and the respondents in the village of Jhabreda. That Kuldeep Tyagi, husband of the aggrieved person died on 15th July 2005 in a car accident, and after the Terhanvi ceremony of her husband, the aggrieved person was constrained to reside initially at Delhi, at her father’s house. That immediately prior to the death of her husband, the aggrieved person had conceived a child.
Held
1) It is held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person when she is related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family, to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been leveled at the time of the commission of domestic violence. If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household Under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek relief under the provisions of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household. The Supreme Court gave the concept of constructive residence, enabling the essence of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.
2) In matters, where the question of the existence of a relationship with the in-laws was in the gray area. It was held that there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-à-vis the allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. In other words, even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the Respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
3) The court also mandated that the idea of a limitation period was absurd for her.
Legal Provisions
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
Section 17. Right to reside in a shared household.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law
19. Residence orders—
(1) While disposing of an application under sub‑section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order—
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;
Conclusion
This historic case reaffirms our faith in the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court has throughout this case been guided through the essence of the legislation. An aggrieved woman can now under the Domestic Violence Act claim her right to residence in the ‘shared household’ after her husband’s death.
Feel free to connect with us, for a better understanding of legal concepts!
If still doubts persist, consult legal experts at
https://www.aapkaconsultant.com/legal-opinion-legal-shots
