Wife Has Right To Live In Shared Household Even After Husband's Death: Kerala High Court

In a significant ruling reaffirming a woman's right to residence, the Kerala High Court has held that a wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home even after the death of her husband.

The decision delivered by Justice M.B. Snehalatha underscores the right of a woman to live in a shared household, ensuring her safety and dignity despite familial opposition.

"One of the most crucial, progressive and empowering features of DV Act is the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of ownership or title.This provision was introduced to prevent a common form of abuse that is, displacement and dispossession of women from her marital home. The right to residence recognise the importance of shelter and security as fundamental to a woman's dignity. This right is crucial for a woman's safety and dignity ensuring that she is not forcibly removed or homeless due to domestic abuse. While recognising the right to residence in the shared household, the Act affirms a woman's right to shelter and security, reinforcing her position in society and well-being of the family. This provision is crucial for the empowerment and protection of women and reflects this law's commitment to gender justice and human dignity".

The court observed that as per the evidence on record the woman's in-laws committed "acts of domestic violence" against her and they had made an "attempt to evict" the petitioner and her children from the "shared household".

The court rejected the in-law's contention that after the death of the husband, the wife is residing at her parental house and therefore she is not an aggrieved person under Domestic Violence Act. 

"The very nature of the contentions taken by the respondents in M.C/revision petitioners would show that the cause of action spoken to by the petitioner in M.C that they are trying to oust her from the shared household and causing obstruction to her peaceful residence and entry therein is true. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was absolutely right in its finding that the petitioner is entitled to get an order restraining the respondents in M.C from committing any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner and her children and causing any obstruction from entering the shared household and residing there peacefully," the high court said. 

Background

The case arose after a widow filed a petition before the magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), alleging that her in-laws, respondents in the case, were attempting to forcibly evict her and her children from the shared household. She alleged they obstructed her from entering and peacefully residing in the house she once shared with her late husband.

The respondents argued that there was no domestic violence as claimed and contended that the petitioner had been living in her parental home since her husband's death and had no continuing “domestic relationship” with them. According to them, she was not an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act and therefore not entitled to any relief.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates K. I. Mayankutty Mather, P. P. Ramachandran

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Abe Rajan, Liju M. P., Sajan Vargheese K., T. V. Neema (PP)

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 286 of 2018

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 310

Click Here To Read/ Download Order