Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), specifically residence orders under Section 19, cannot be extended to a divorced woman after the dissolution of her marriage.

A Single judge bench of Justice K. Babu, clarified that a divorced woman cannot claim residence rights under the DV Act after the dissolution of the marriage, as the “domestic relationship,” which is a prerequisite under the said Act, ceases to exist.

The court made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the wife alleging domestic violence against her by her husband and his relatives. The petitioner was granted a residence order by the Magistrate based on prima facie evidence, holding that the petitioner’s allegations were credible despite the absence of medical documentation or independent witnesses. The Sessions Court upheld this decision.

The respondents approached the High court challenging this order. It was contended that the marriage between the parties had been dissolved by a division bench of the High Court on April 08, 2014, due to which the wife became ineligible of being granted a residence order. It was further argued that the Magistrate erred in granting the residence order based merely on prima facie satisfaction, which is insufficient under Section 19 of the DV Act.

However, the petitioner argued that relief under the DV Act should not be limited by subsequent events, such as divorce, as the Act aims to protect women from abuse irrespective of marital status.

Analysing the petitioner’s claims, the court emphasised that while prima facie evidence is sufficient to grant interim protection orders under Section 18, stronger proof is required under Section 19, though not as stringent as “beyond reasonable doubt.”

Referring to the judgment in Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree (2021), the court held that a divorced woman can be considered an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act. However, residence rights under Section 19 are restricted to shared households where the aggrieved woman continues to reside during the subsistence of the marriage. “In the present case, the petitioner is not residing in a shared household. The Court directed respondent No.1 to provide an alternative accommodation. Therefore, though she can be an 'aggrieved person' under the DV Act, she is not entitled to the benefit provided in this case after 08.04.2014,” the court stated.

Ruling that the petitioner’s residence rights ceased when the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, the court held, “In the present case, admittedly as per judgment dated 08.04.2014…a Division Bench of this Court dissolved the marital tie between the parties. There are no special circumstances that prevent this Court from taking cognizance of the divorce effected in determining the rights of the parties. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act after 08.04.2014.”

The court concluded that a woman cannot claim reinstatement into a shared household or demand alternative accommodation under DV Act after the divorce. As a result, it held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the residence order only till April 8, 2014.

 

Cause Title: D. Sudheer v Anusha R. Nair [CRL.REV.PET NO. 1173 OF 2013]