Site icon Legal Vidhiya

RIGHT TO RESIDE IN A SHARED HOUSEHOLD

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Khushita Garg of 1st Year of Army Institute of Law, Mohali, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

In the intricate tapestry of communal living, the right to reside in shared households unfolds as a complex narrative at the crossroads of law and society. This article explores the different aspects that make up this part of modern living. It looks at how laws and how people in society interact with each other play a role. When people live together in one place, there is a mix of legal rules, how they relate to each other, and how society’s expectations are changing over time. Within the context of patriarchal societies, such as in India, where ingrained gender norms perpetuate the subjugation of women, the right to reside in shared households gains particular significance. This study examines the issue of domestic violence rooted in patriarchal structures, where women often endure various forms of exploitation in silence. The enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in 2005 marked a pivotal moment, aiming to provide effective protection of women’s constitutional rights. Central to the Act is the shared household concept, affording women the right to reside in the dwelling associated with the abuser, thereby challenging the traditional notion that women are mere chattels of men. The Act extends protection to women in diverse domestic relationships, encompassing sisters, mothers, in-laws, widows, and unmarried women cohabitating with the abuser. Notably, the Act restricts eviction from the husband’s house, allowing it only through legally established procedures. This article critically examines the nuanced dimensions of the shared household concept, emphasizing the right to reside and the broader protection it affords to women in abusive domestic relationships. Drawing insights from various judicial interpretations, the research sheds light on the evolving understanding of “shared household” and the rights it confers.

Keywords

Domestic violence, patriarchy, domestic relationships, shared household, abuser.

INTRODUCTION

In communal living, the “right to reside” in a shared household emerges as a foundational principle for fostering harmony among individuals sharing living spaces. This crucial right extends beyond a mere legal entitlement, embodying a moral imperative that emphasizes the necessity for each resident to inhabit the shared premises with dignity, respect, and a shared commitment to cultivating a positive communal atmosphere. At its core, the right to reside transcends the physical occupancy of space, placing significance on creating an environment where residents can flourish emotionally, socially, and intellectually. This right not only grants individuals the freedom to express their unique individualities but also acknowledges the shared responsibilities inherent in communal living. It promotes collaboration toward building an inclusive and supportive home, where the richness of diversity is embraced, and the distinctive contributions of each resident are valued. This commitment to the right to reside goes beyond cohabitation, symbolizing a collective responsibility for the community’s well-being. In this shared space, open communication, empathy, and mutual understanding serve as the foundational pillars for constructing a vibrant and inclusive living environment. Moreover, as echoed by Michelle Obama’s poignant words, the realization of a truly flourishing society necessitates the empowerment and recognition of the potential contributions of all its members. In the context of India, where women historically grapple with various forms of violence and societal restrictions, legal measures such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act play a pivotal role. This legislation not only defines domestic violence comprehensively but also grants women the right to reside in a shared household, offering protection against eviction and abuse. By acknowledging and upholding the right to reside, individuals contribute to the transformation of shared households into spaces where occupants actively participate in the creation of a nurturing, respectful, and harmonious home for all. This right becomes a guiding principle that shapes the ethos of communal living, promoting an environment where individuals not only inhabit rooms but actively engage in the collective effort to build a supportive and inclusive community.

WHAT IS A SHARED HOUSEHOLD?

According to Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a “shared household” is defined as a place where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, either alone or with the respondent. This household can be owned or rented, either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or owned or rented by either of them. It also includes a household in which the aggrieved person or the respondent, either jointly or individually, has any right, title, interest, or equity. Additionally, the definition extends to a household that may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any specific right, title, or interest in the shared household[1].

It’s crucial to examine Section 2(f) of the Act, which defines “domestic relationship.” According to this section, a domestic relationship exists between two persons who live together or have lived together in a shared household. This relationship can be based on consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship similar to marriage, including adoption. It also encompasses family members living together as a joint family[2].

RIGHT TO RESIDE IN A SHARED HOUSEHOLD (S.  17)

A “shared household,” as stipulated by Section 17 of the Act, affirms every woman’s entitlement to reside in such a dwelling. S.17 states that

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in the same.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent, save in accordance with the procedure established by law[3].

Therefore, According to the Act, a shared household encompasses:

  1. A residence jointly owned or rented by both the aggrieved woman and the respondent (related person).
  2. A dwelling separately owned or rented by the aggrieved woman and the respondent, wherein either party possesses an interest, title, right, or equity.
  3. The home of a joint family, in which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the aggrieved person or respondent holds any interest, right, or title in the property.

Notably, the definition of a shared household doesn’t necessitate ownership or co-ownership by the violated individual. Despite its broad wording, the Supreme Court, in the case of S.R. Batra and Anr. v Smt. Taruna Batra[4], emphasized that the interpretation of this definition should avoid absurd outcomes. The Court clarified that a “shared household” wouldn’t include a residence owned by the husband’s parents in which the aggrieved person happened to reside.

In a matrimonial setup

In the context of a matrimonial set up in India, there is a notable absence of specific legislation addressing the concept of a matrimonial house. The absence of a defined legal framework directly about a matrimonial house leads to a situation where neither its definition nor specific rights regarding it are explicitly outlined. Despite this, the overarching right to a shared household under the Act confers upon a wife the right to reside in the shared household with her husband. This entitlement extends to living in a house jointly owned or rented by the wife and husband, whether together or separately. It also encompasses a residence in which the husband possesses a right, title, or interest, including the joint family house where the husband is a member. However, it is crucial to note that this right does not extend to a house owned or purchased by the parents or relatives of the husband unless he holds a subsisting right in it. For example, houses owned (not inherited) by the mother-in-law or sister-in-law would not be considered a shared household. The discretion to allow the wife or husband to stay in a house owned by the in-laws or relatives of the husband lies solely with the house owners. Parents-in-law are not obligated to provide residence to their daughter-in-law in a house owned by them, and any claim to reside in such a house is likely to be unsuccessful.

Denial of residence in the shared household

The denial of residence in the shared household is recognized as domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, constituting economic abuse. According to Section 3 Explanation 1(iv)(c) of the Act, any action, omission, or conduct by the husband, male partner, or any of his relatives that denies access to the shared household is considered a form of economic abuse.

It is important to clarify that the right to reside in a shared household persists as long as the domestic relationship is intact. However, with the dissolution of the marital relationship through divorce, the right to live in the shared household naturally ceases. Until the point of divorce, the protection from domestic violence, including the right to stay in the shared household, remains applicable.

Authorities to approach if you face domestic violence or forced eviction from the shared household

Claims and Remedies Available in the Event of Forced Eviction from a Shared Household

  1. Residence Orders (s. 19)

Section 12(1) of the Act empowers an aggrieved person, a protection officer, or any person acting on behalf of an aggrieved person to file an application seeking reliefs provided under the Act. Upon receipt of such an application, if the Magistrate is satisfied that domestic violence has occurred, the court can issue a residence order under Section 19(1), specifying various forms of relief outlined in Section 19(1)(a) to (f):

II. Shelter home

Upon the request of the aggrieved women made to the Protection Officer or the service provider, a safe shelter home shall be provided. It’s important to note that opting for shelter home accommodation does not preclude the aggrieved woman from seeking other available reliefs. The shelter home is duty-bound to provide refuge under the directive of these authorities, ensuring a secure environment for women in distress[6].

ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RECENT VERDICT

The recent Supreme Court verdict in the case of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi[7] (Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022) marks a significant paradigm shift in the interpretation and application of the Domestic Violence Act. The case involved an aggrieved person who, despite being entitled to her deceased husband’s properties, faced domestic violence and was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The court grappled with crucial issues surrounding mandatory residence with the accused and the necessity of a subsisting domestic relationship. In a groundbreaking move, the court affirmed that a victim of domestic violence can enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she physically resides in that household at the time of the alleged act. Introducing the concepts of “constructive residency” and “non-existence of marital connection,” the court expanded the scope of protection under the Domestic Violence Act. This departure from the traditional requirement of physical cohabitation is a progressive step, acknowledging the complexities of domestic relationships and the potential for abuse even when immediate physical presence is lacking.

The verdict’s recognition that relationships based on consanguinity, marriage, or other forms do not require immediate physical cohabitation during the alleged act reflects a more nuanced understanding of domestic relationships. It acknowledges that the dynamics of domestic violence can persist beyond immediate physical proximity, necessitating legal remedies that account for such complexities. By liberating victims from the requirement of immediate physical residence with the alleged perpetrators, the court’s decision empowers those who face domestic violence and are compelled to leave shared households due to abuse. This approach aligns with the overarching goal of the Domestic Violence Act—to provide effective protection to victims and hold perpetrators accountable.

CASE LAWS

In the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja[8], the court clarified that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not grant ownership rights to the aggrieved person in the shared household. The argument was made that the claim for alternate accommodation should be against the husband, not the father-in-law, as the statutory obligation to provide residence and maintenance lies with the husband.

On the other hand, Ajay Kumar vs. Lata Alias Sharuti & Ors[9] defined “shared household” as a place where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent, whether owned or tenanted jointly or individually. This includes households owned by the joint family of which the respondent is a member.

However, in the case of Dr. V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma vs. Bindu V.[10], the court emphasized that for a matter to be filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the person must live in the same household. The court defined a household as a group of people living together and sharing meals from a common kitchen. In this case, since the appellant lived on a different floor with a separate kitchen and household, the court deemed it not to be a shared household, supporting the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate.

The Domestic Violence Act requires the existence of a current and active domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent at the time of filing a complaint. This was highlighted in the case of Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik[11]. The court emphasized that for a relationship to qualify as a domestic one, the individuals involved must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separately, they are considered relatives by blood or consanguinity rather than a family. The court clarified that, in the context of parents and their son, the family relationship exists only when the parents are dependent on the son and/or living with the son in the same house. If the parents are living separately and are not dependent on the son, they form a separate family. In such cases, the son, his wife, and children constitute a distinct family. The court emphasized that there is no domestic relationship between the wife of the son and the parents if the parents are not living with the son, and similarly, there is no domestic relationship between the wife and the parents of her husband when the son, along with the wife, is living abroad.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the right to reside in the shared household by the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 has played a pivotal role in empowering women to assert their rights and break the silence surrounding domestic violence. The fear of homelessness, which often forced women to endure violence in silence, has been addressed by this important legal provision. Court verdicts further reinforce the significance of this right, marking a positive step towards women’s empowerment. As we reflect on the words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, emphasizing the essential role of women in the rise of a nation to glory, it becomes clear that safeguarding the rights of women is fundamental to the overall progress and stature of a society. The Domestic Violence Act stands as a beacon of protection, offering a legal framework to shield women from violence and ensuring they are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. In essence, the legislation not only serves as a deterrent to domestic violence but also fosters a societal shift towards the proper treatment of women. As we strive for a more equitable and just society, the Domestic Violence Act remains a cornerstone in the ongoing journey toward gender equality and the preservation of human rights. It is a testament to the collective commitment to building a society where every individual, regardless of gender, can live free from the scourge of violence and discrimination.

REFERENCES

[1] Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 2(s), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005

[2] Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 2(f), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005

[3] Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 17, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005

[4] S.R. Batra and Anr. v Smt. Taruna Batra, AIR 2007 SC 1118

[5] Domestic Violence Act, 2005, § 19, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005

[6] Deepanshi Sharma, Right to residence in Matrimonial Home, IPLEADERS (Jan. 8, 2018), https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-live-in-the-shared-household/

[7] Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 10 SCC 607

[8] Satish Chander v. Sneha Ahuja, (JT 2020 (10) SC 244)

[9] Ajay Kumar vs. Lata Alias Sharuti & Ors, (2019) 15 SCC 352

[10] Dr. V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma vs. Bindu V., CRL. M.C. No. 2225 OF 2009

[11] Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik, (2010 (3) CC cases (HC) 543

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version