The bench said woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside in a shared household.
In an important verdict safeguarding the interest of woman victims of domestic violence, the Supreme Court Thursday gave a wide interpretation to the term ‘right to reside in a shared household' under the law, holding it cannot be restricted to only actual matrimonial residence, but can be extended to other homes irrespective to right over the property.
A bench of justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna, while hearing a plea of domestic violence victim after she was widowed, dealt with the unique situation of Indian women who live at places different from matrimonial homes, such as the workplaces of their husbands,.
"There could be several situations and circumstances and every woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside in a shared household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same and the said right could be enforced by any woman under the said provision as an independent right...," the bench said.
It held that the even in the absence of a “Domestic Incident Report” of a protection officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, reliefs such as right to reside in the shared matrimonial homes can be enforced.
"It is held that Section 12 (under which a woman seeks reliefs under the Act), does not makes it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act.
“It is clarified that even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the DV Act,” Justice Nagarathna said, writing 79-page judgement.
The bench also answered a legal question whether it was mandatory for the aggrieved women to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levied at the point of commission of domestic violence.
“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 levelled at the time of commission of domestic violence,” it said.
If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under the law and such a woman becomes a victim of domestic violence then she can seek reliefs under the provisions of DV Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household. Dealing with the question whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the victim and the accused family members, it said there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed with regard to the allegation of domestic violence.
However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting, it said, adding if the accused, at any point of time, had lived with the victim then she is entitled to file an application claiming relief under the law.
The bench set aside the verdicts of the High Court of Uttarakhand and the trial court which had held the widow was not entitled to any relief under the law as there was no “Domestic Incident Report” of a protection officer before the trial magistrate.
The top court dealt with the expression ‘the right to reside in a shared household' in the context of Indian women and said it needed “expansive interpretation” and “cannot be restricted to actual residence.” “Even in the absence of actual residence in the shared household, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside therein,” it said.
The interpretation can be explained by way of an illustration, it said, adding if a woman gets married then she acquires the right to reside in the household of her husband which then becomes a shared household within the meaning of the D.V. Act.
“In India, it is a societal norm for a woman, on her marriage to reside with her husband, unless due to professional, occupational or job commitments, or for other genuine reasons, the husband and wife decide to reside at different locations. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a shared household,” it said.
Also a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship has the right to reside not only in the house of her husband, if it is located in another place which is also a shared household but also in the shared household which may be in a different location in which the family of her husband resides, it said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)