Widow Can’t Be Thrown Out of Matrimonial Home by In-Laws, Says Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently upheld a widow’s right to reside in her matrimonial home, rejecting objections raised by her in-laws who had attempted to evict her.

The bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed a revision petition filed by the relatives of the deceased husband of a 41-year-old woman who had approached the courts seeking protection from harassment and forceful eviction from the shared household after her husband’s demise in 2009.

The high court affirmed the decision of the sessions court in Palakkad, which had granted protection and residence orders in the woman’s favour after overturning the findings of the judicial magistrate, who had initially dismissed her plea.

The woman alleged that following her husband's death, her in-laws began to harass her and obstruct her and her children’s entry into the family home. She approached the court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the magistrate’s court held that she had no existing “domestic relationship” with her in-laws and therefore wasn’t entitled to relief under the Act.

The sessions court took a different view and granted her the relief sought. The in-laws challenged this before the high court, arguing that the woman owned separate property and had been living at her parental home, thus disqualifying her as an “aggrieved person” under the Act.

Rejecting these arguments, the high court noted that the woman, being the wife of the deceased and having resided in the shared household, fell squarely within the definitions under Sections 2(a), 2(f), and 2(s) of the DV Act. Court reiterated that the right to reside in the shared household does not depend on ownership or continuous residence at the time of the dispute.

Quoting extensively from the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, the judgment emphasized that women’s right to shelter and security within a domestic setting is fundamental and cannot be undermined merely because they possess alternate accommodation or temporarily reside elsewhere.

“This right is crucial for a woman's safety and dignity, ensuring that she is not forcibly removed or homeless due to domestic abuse,” the court observed, while also stressing that the DV Act should be interpreted liberally in favour of victims, keeping its beneficial and protective purpose in mind.

Finding no merit in the arguments of the in-laws, the high court refused to interfere with the sessions court order. The revision petition was, accordingly, dismissed.

Case Title: Chenthamara @ Kannan and Others vs Meena and Another

Download judgment here