NEW DELHI: In a historical judgment under the Domestic violence law which aims to ensure that in-laws treat daughters-in-law well, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that once a woman files a complaint under the 2005 law, she will have the right to reside in the shared home even if it was rented or property of the in-laws and the husband had no property rights over it.
In a major widening of the term ‘shared home’ to protect hapless women at risk of being expelled from their conjugal homes, the court ruled that the aggrieved woman can claim the right of residence in any house in which she lived with her husband or domestic partner even if that house belonged to the husband’s in-laws, relatives , or it was even a rented place where they lived together. To get her out of the house, the only option with the homeowner is to file an eviction lawsuit, she said.
Setting aside an earlier decision that a distraught woman might have the right to reside only if the house where she resided after marriage or during a domestic relationship was owned by the husband or if he had the right to shared property over her (such as a house family), a bank of Judges Ashok Bhushan, RS Reddy and MR Shah gave a broader meaning to the concept of ‘shared home’ to offer infallible protection women or living couples to be summarily expelled from the house by the husband or in-laws during the processing of their complaint under the DV Law
The bank explained the meaning of ‘living together’ and said there should be some permanence attached. “The mere fleeting or casual life in different places should not form a shared home. The intention of the parties and the nature of life, including the nature of the home, must be analyzed to find out whether the parties intended to treat the premises as a shared home or not, ”he said.
But she viewed the DV Law as a milestone in guaranteeing women’s rights, noting that they were often unable to file a complaint due to adverse social equations.
In a 151-page ruling that resolves significant issues in the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, Judge Bhushan said: “The definition of shared home given in Section 2 (s) cannot be interpreted in the sense that the shared home can only be the home that is the home of the joint family of which the husband is a member or in which the husband of the aggrieved person has a share.
.
