Latest news with #MBSnehalatha
News18
3 days ago
- General
- News18
Widow Can't Be Thrown Out Of Matrimonial Home By In-Laws: Kerala High Court
Last Updated: A 41-year-old woman approached the courts seeking protection from harassment and forceful eviction from the shared household after her husband's demise in 2009 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 MB 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. The 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 vs Kamlesh Devi, the judgment emphasised 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. First Published: June 04, 2025, 16:26 IST
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Women entitled to stay in matrimonial home even after hubby's death: HC
Kochi: Kerala high court has held that a woman's right to reside in her matrimonial home under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), continues even after the death of her husband, irrespective of ownership or title. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court further observed that this right is a crucial safeguard to ensure a woman's safety, dignity and protection from being forcibly removed or rendered homeless due to domestic abuse. Justice M B Snehalatha gave the ruling while dismissing a revision petition filed by a woman's in-laws from Palakkad who sought to quash a sessions court's order. The sessions court had set aside a magistrate's finding that no domestic relationship existed between the woman and her in-laws after her husband's death. The woman's husband passed away in 2009, after which she and her children moved to her parents' home and filed a petition under the DV Act, alleging that her in-laws had attempted to evict her from the shared household and had obstructed her and her children from residing there. The magistrate's court, however, dismissed her plea, holding that she no longer had a domestic relationship with her in-laws within the meaning of the Act. On appeal, the sessions court set aside the magistrate's order and restrained the in-laws from committing any act of domestic violence. The in-laws approached HC challenging this. HC, however, found that the evidence on record established that the in-laws had attempted to dispossess the woman after her husband's death. The court held that she continues to qualify as an 'aggrieved person' under the DV Act and remains in a domestic relationship with her in-laws, both terms being explicitly defined under the statute. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now HC also emphasised that the DV Act is a progressive, rights-based legislation aimed at addressing the pervasive issue of domestic violence against women. It highlighted that Section 17 of the Act grants every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of any legal ownership or title. This right, HC observed, upholds shelter and security as essential to a woman's dignity and reflects the broader objectives of gender justice and human rights embedded in the legislation.
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Time of India
Kerala high court seeks KSRTC's response on bus service disruption at Sabarimala
Kochi: High court has sought instructions from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) regarding a report filed by the Sabarimala special commissioner which stated that chain services between Nilakkal and Pamba were halted without prior notice on April 16, during the annual holy festival and 'Meda Masa Puja. 'According to the report, the services were suspended at 7pm on April 16 without informing higher authorities, the police coordinator or the special commissioner, allegedly due to a diesel shortage at the Nilakkal petrol pump. While considering the report on Tuesday, a bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and M B Snehalatha directed KSRTC's counsel to get instructions regarding the alleged incident. The matter has been adjourned to May 20 for further report also highlighted that the disruption in the chain service of buses seriously affected devotees. It requested HC to issue directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that higher officials are informed promptly in such situations and that sufficient fuel is maintained at the devaswom board-owned petrol bunks at Nilakkal and Pamba to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. Referring to an accident at Kanamala on April 16, which led to the death of one devotee and injuries to 27 others, the special commissioner recommended the deployment of one or two teams from the Safe Zone initiative during monthly pujas, citing the increasing flow of vehicles and addition, the court was informed that 13 devotees who had consumed food from Stall No 88 (Coffee Land Hotel at Pamba) were admitted to a govt hospital on suspicion of food poisoning. A temporary closure notice was issued to the hotel on April 12, and it reopened the following day after an inspection by the special squad. The special commissioner also refuted reports that currency notes were destroyed in a fire at Sabarimala, stating that the allegation was false and appeared to have been fabricated by certain staff members with ulterior motives. Meanwhile, it was observed that 14 sacks of damaged currency notes, along with a large quantity of foreign coins, lamps and bells were found dumped in the old and new bhandarams (temple treasuries).Finally, the report noted deviations in the moisture content of Appam and Aravana as observed in recent test reports. This was attributed to a mechanical defect in the boiler. Urgent maintenance was recommended, and the executive officer was directed to ensure that moisture levels remain within permissible limits.
India Today
01-05-2025
- India Today
Wedding gold woman's property, must be returned after divorce: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has ruled that gold ornaments and cash gifted to a bride at the time of wedding are to be treated as her exclusive property or 'Streedhan', reaffirming the legal right of women over such possessions. The division bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha delivered the verdict, while allowing a petition by a woman from Kalamassery, Ernakulam. She had challenged a family court decision that had denied her claim for return of gifts and ornaments following divorce court observed that 'unfortunately there are numerous cases where such valuable possessions are misappropriated by husband or in-laws.''Due to the private and often informal nature of such transfers, it becomes merely impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations. In such a situation the courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice.' The bench noted that insisting on rigid legal proof would be unrealistic in such matters, especially given the personal and undocumented nature of wedding petitioner had contended that she was given 63 sovereigns of gold and a two-sovereign chain by her family at the time of marriage in 2010, along with an additional six sovereigns of gold gifted by relatives. However, she alleged that except for the mangalsutra, a bangle, and two rings used regularly, all the ornaments were taken to her parents-in-law's room under the pretext of safekeeping. The relationship later soured over the alleged non-payment of an additional Rs 5 lakh demanded by her woman substantiated her claim by presenting documents that showed the gold had been purchased with money her parents had deposited in a fixed deposit. The high court, after reviewing the case, directed that 59.5 sovereigns of gold, or its current market value, be returned to the petitioner by her court, however, noted that she was unable to provide proof regarding the additional six sovereigns of gold said to have been given by her relatives, and therefore rejected that portion of her claim. Similarly, her plea for the return of certain household articles was denied due to a lack of evidence regarding their the broader implications of such cases, the court observed that gold given to a bride at the time of marriage is often retained by the husband or his family under the guise of safekeeping or as part of family customs. In most instances, the woman does not receive a written record or receipt for these transfers, and her access to the ornaments can be restricted. This becomes especially problematic when disputes arise; such as in cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment, or divorce, where the woman may claim that her jewellery was misused or never returned.'The woman rarely gets a written record or receipt for such transfers and the woman's access to her own ornaments can be restricted. When disputes arise, especially in cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, the woman may claim that her gold ornaments have been misused or never returned. However, since she seldom receives the list or acknowledgment of the items given to her, proving ownership becomes difficult. Courts have to understand this practical difficulty and cannot insist on rigid legal proof as in criminal cases,' the court Watch IN THIS STORY#Kerala
