In-laws can't evict widow from husband's home, rules Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court ruled that a woman cannot be evicted from her matrimonial home, even after her husband's death.The court was hearing a case where a 41-year-old woman had accused her in-laws of trying to force her and her children out of the house she shared with her late husband.The woman had approached the Sessions Court in Palakkad under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court ruled in her favour, overturning an earlier order by a magistrate that had dismissed her plea. Her in-laws then challenged the Sessions Court's decision in the High Court.advertisement
However, the High Court dismissed their petition. Justice MB Snehalatha said that under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to live in the shared household, regardless of whether she owns it or has any legal claim to it.Her in-laws argued that she owned another property and had not lived in the house after her husband's death. They also said there was no domestic relationship anymore, and that the DV Act should not apply to them.But the court said the evidence showed that the in-laws had committed acts of domestic violence by trying to evict her and her children. It ruled that the Sessions Court was right in granting protection to the woman.The court called the Domestic Violence Act a landmark law meant to protect women and upheld her right to live in her matrimonial home.advertisement
IN THIS STORY#Kerala
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Crorepati' husband must pay ₹1 cr to abused wife: Court
MUMBAI: The sessions court recently increased the compensation given to a woman in a domestic violence case from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore after noticing that her husband and in-laws were multimillionaires. Setting aside the order of a magistrate court, the additional sessions judge said that the compensation amount had to be substantially enhanced so as to compensate her for 20 years of torture and economic abuse. The woman had approached the court claiming she was subjected to years of domestic violence and torture by her husband and in-laws after getting married in December 1997. She said that her husband used to beat her and threaten her with dire consequences if she revealed it to anyone. The petitioner also claimed that she had suffered a miscarriage in the early years of their marriage due to pressure from her in-laws to conceive a son. After giving birth to a girl and two boys, she said her husband and in-laws only cared about her sons and used to mistreat her daughter. However, she continued with the marriage for the sake of her children, she added. The woman, a homemaker, also alleged that she was given a fixed amount to run the household, and her husband would beat her if she failed to account for the expenses. Further, she said that her husband sold a private company, in which she was also a director, without her knowledge and used the money to buy a flat. Despite having a share in the sale proceeds, her husband did not give her any money, she alleged. In November 2016, the woman's husband allegedly stopped giving her any money for household expenses and for the expenses of their daughter, prompting her to file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. An FIR was registered against her husband that same month. However, the magistrate court granted her a compensation of only ₹5 lakh, which she said was too meagre. She then approached the sessions court, arguing for higher compensation. Her petition said that her husband and his family own businesses and several flats in Mumbai, a bungalow in Kharghar, houses in Lonavala and a factory in Navi Mumbai. In response, her husband and in-laws alleged that the woman had the capacity to earn since she was a textile engineering graduate from the University of Mumbai. The sessions court ruled in favour of the woman, saying that 'having the capacity to earn by itself cannot result in the rejection of any claim of maintenance by a complainant who is subjected to domestic violence at the hands of her husband'. The court said it had been proven that the woman was subjected to economic abuse and domestic violence at the hands of the respondents. It added that her husband and his parents had the capacity to spend more than ₹1 crore to purchase land and a flat in Kharghar in 2012, and currently run an elevator company. This was 'a clear reflection of their sound financial status as also the fact of they belonging to the class commonly known as crorepatis,' the court said, adding that the woman and her daughter were also entitled to enjoy the same standard of living. The sessions court, thereby, set aside the magistrate court's order, observing that granting the woman a compensation of ₹5 lakh 'is too meagre an amount'. Observing that the woman's daughter is studying in an international school, the court said she was entitled to a maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month. It also restrained her husband and in-laws from evicting the woman and her daughter from the shared household.
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Custodial torture naked violation of human dignity': Delhi Court cites '97 SC verdict, orders FIR against cops
A Delhi court recently ordered the registration of an FIR against police officers of the Shahbad Dairy police station in a custodial torture case. 'As per the allegations, victim Naveen @ Monu was tortured by the accused police officials for the purpose of committing extortion. In view of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, a thorough investigation is required to unearth the exact role played by the accused police officials in the commission of the alleged offences,' said Additional Sessions Judge Jagmohan Singh of Rohini Court on May 21. 'Two enquiries conducted by higher police officials into the present allegations found that allegations of custodial torture upon Naveen during police custody could not be ruled out,' the court noted. The court was hearing a revision plea moved by a woman, Meenakshi, against an August 2019 magistrate court order, which had denied lodging and an FIR against the police officials for torturing her husband, Naveen. The Sessions Court also cited a 1997 Supreme Court verdict, which stated that 'custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity, and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward.' While setting aside the 2019 order, the Sessions Court directed the SHO to file an FIR against the station's chowki in charge, investigating officer, head constable, and two other persons within a week of the order. As per the original complaint, on April 3, 2018, two groups were involved in a scuffle at Naya bans, Khera Kurd in Delhi. Cross complaints were registered from both sides, and Naveen was allegedly falsely implicated in the cases. The complaint further alleged that three days later, Naveen was picked up by the accused police officials. Meenakshi alleged that her husband was 'physically and mentally tortured' by the accused and that a demand was Rs 5 lakhs was made to release him. '…the CCTV footage (in the case) as well as the call detail record need to be analysed in a government forensic lab, which is beyond the reach of the complainant as well as the victim. It has also to be kept in mind that in the present case, the complainant as well as the victim are ordinary citizens while the accused are all police officials,' ASJ Singh said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
Mumbai court raises domestic violence compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore
A sessions court in Mumbai has significantly increased the compensation awarded to a woman who suffered domestic violence for 20 years — raising it from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore, according to a report by legal news portal Live Law. The court noted that the woman's husband and his family are 'crorepatis', meaning extremely wealthy, and that the original compensation amount was too low. In an order passed on May 5, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Ansari stated that the ₹5 lakh compensation set by the Magistrate Court was 'meagre". He observed, 'It is clear that the husband has not been able to prove the fact of he being in dire straits, financially. On the other hand, the material on the record reflects that he and his family are what in common parlance is called 'crorepatis.' The facts of the matter as proved on the record will show that after suffering domestic violence in the nature of beatings, severe assaults, taunts and even financial deprivation in a marriage of almost 20 years, the complainant was forced to approach the court for seeking maintenance, etc. as the last resort. The physical and mental torture as also the sustained emotional distress felt by the complainant while living with the husband can therefore, scarcely be imagined.' The judge further noted that the husband's wealth was a crucial factor in determining appropriate compensation. He said, 'The fact that the complainant has to now also suffer being estranged from her two sons, as the husband appears to have influenced them against their mother, is also something which cannot be ignored. The husband, though has tried his level best to show that he is not in a good financial situation, has not been successful in proving the said contention. On the other hand, he being in a position to purchase properties worth ₹1 crore in 2012, and presently running an elevator company, will surely be rolling in money. Hence, balancing the scale, I am of the view that the compensation as granted to the wife needs to be enhanced to ₹1 crore.' Case background The case involved appeals from both sides: the husband and his parents, and the wife. They were contesting an earlier Metropolitan Magistrate Court order issued on February 18, 2020. The wife had sought an increase in both compensation and her ₹1 lakh monthly maintenance, while the husband challenged both amounts. In a 70-page order, Judge Ansari recounted that the couple married on December 12, 1997, and lived together until November 2016. The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act that same month, accusing her husband of humiliation, abuse, assault, physical, mental and economic cruelty during more than two decades of marriage. Wife's testimony against wealthy husband The wife explained how her husband and in-laws operated several businesses, one of which listed her as a 'namesake' director — she was made to sign documents but had no real role. That company was later sold without her knowledge. She also said the couple owned several properties, including flats across Maharashtra and villas in Lonavla. According to her, the husband often berated her about spending and even threatened violence if she used extra money for household needs — claims the husband denied. She further alleged that her husband and in-laws physically assaulted her and never wanted a girl child. Initially, she was taunted for not conceiving; when she became pregnant with triplets, a miscarriage followed due to 'stress' from her in-laws and husband. Even after giving birth to two sons, she faced continued abuse, and her daughter was not accepted by the family — leading her to support her daughter alone. Court rejects husband's defence The husband disputed these accusations, including the physical abuse, arguing that his wife failed to provide exact dates of assault. Rejecting his arguments, Judge Ansari held, 'No wife can be expected to remember the exact dates and exact trivial reasons for her husband assaulting her over a long period of time. No other witnesses can also have been expected to be examined by the complainant on the said aspect, as the incidents of assault had almost always occurred within the four walls of the house. In such circumstances, the mere fact of the complainant not being able to recall the reason for the trivial fights between her and her husband, as also the specific dates on which she had been physically assaulted cannot at all be said to be grounds sufficient to challenge her testimony regarding the same.' The court found the wife's testimony 'unshaken' regarding most allegations. However, it ruled that she proved domestic violence only by her husband — not her in-laws. The court also determined that the husband committed 'economic abuse.' Responding to the husband's claim that his wife, a textile engineer, was capable of earning an income, Judge Ansari said: 'Even otherwise, having the capacity to earn by itself, cannot result in the rejection of any claim of maintenance by a complainant who is subjected to domestic violence at the hands of her husband. The question of the complainant's minor daughter being in a position to maintain herself, also does not arise. I am therefore of the clear view that the complainant and her minor daughter are entitled to claim maintenance from the husband. The fact that the husband and his parents had the capacity to spend more than ₹1 crore for purchasing land as also a flat in Kharghar in the year 2012 is a clear reflection of their sound financial status as also the fact of they belonging to the class commonly known as 'crorepatis.' It is therefore, not difficult to imagine their standard of living at all times. This being so and the complainant having been subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the husband, she as also her daughter will be entitled to enjoy the same standard of living as that of the respondents.' With these observations, Judge Ansari enhanced the compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore and increased monthly maintenance from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakh — for both the wife and the couple's minor daughter.
