Friday, 20 February 2015

When woman should not be denied right of residence in house owned by her mother-in-law?


  If, as a matter of fact, a girl is brought to the house

by the bridegroom on his own without the junction of his

parents, of course, the girl cannot forward a claim on such a

house belonging to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law as

the shared household. In this particular case, the husband

of the woman is no where in the picture. He has virtually

abandoned the girl and has gone abroad. It seems that his

parents are hand in gloves with him and they want to see


that the girl is thrown to the street. The marriage of the girl

was an arranged marriage, and she was brought not to the

street after marriage, whereas she was brought to the house

in question. Party respondents have no case that her

husband has another house of his own wherein they were

living together. Had she been made aware before the

marriage that she would not be permitted to reside in that

house and she would not be permitted to treat that house as

shared household, she would not have agreed for such a

marriage. In such a case, no sensible parents of a girl will

give their daughter in marriage to such a person. Therefore,

having accepted the girl as their daughter-in-law and


permitted to be taken to that house for her stay there, they


cannot be permitted to show the doors to her, on a mere


claim that the house belongs to the mother-in-law.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

                    MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

               TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
                                 OP(Crl.).No. 23 of 2015 (Q)
                                  

        SHIMA,   NAVAS
           



                
      This Court has noted a situation wherein a lady was

thrown out of her shared household, allegedly by her in-

laws, who are hand in gloves with her husband. Her

husband has been watching and enjoying the procedure by

sitting behind the curtain.

      2. This is a case wherein the learned Magistrate has

passed a residence order. That order was not obeyed. She

again approached the learned Magistrate through Ext.P5

Crl.M.P for getting police aid for the implementation of the

order. The learned Magistrate passed Ext.P6 order on

16.01.2015, thereby directing the Station House Officer

concerned to give necessary police aid. It was averred in




the petition that by that time the house was locked and the

respondents have gone away from there for restraining the

woman from gaining an entry into the house.

      3. As the concerned police officer was not directed to

open the house for enabling the woman to gain entry, the

police expressed their inability. Even though she has prayed

for a better order, her cries fell in deaf ears, and strangely, it

invited a prolonged adjournment of the case. The petitioner

has come up with a prayer for directing the learned

Magistrate to pass an order in terms of Ext.P5. Initially, this

Court has not passed any order; whereas a notice was

ordered through special messenger. When the special

messenger of this Court attempted to serve notice on the

respondents, it has been reported that, they were not ready

and willing to accept the notice. At that stage, this Court was

convinced that the lawful orders passed by the learned

Magistrate was deliberately flouted and the building was

locked by the respondents and they went away from there.


      4. The special messenger appointed by this Court has

reported that the woman along with her aged parents were

seen residing at the open veranda of the locked house. In

the interest of justice, this Court has assumed the power

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relying on the

decision in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial

Magistrate[AIR1998 SC 128] and passed the present order

by directing the concerned Sub Inspector of Police to force

open the house for enabling the petitioner as well as her

aged parents to gain entry into the house. The said order

has been duly executed.

      5. It is settled law that High Court can exercise its

power      of   judicial review   in   criminal matters. The

nomenclature under which the petition is filed is not quite

relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising

its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses.

      6.    The    learned  Senior    Counsel  appearing  for

respondents 2 to 5, on the strength of the decision in Batra


v. Taruna Batra [AIR 2007 SC 1118], has argued that the

house in question, being the one belongs to the mother-in-

law of the woman, cannot be treated as the shared

household of the woman.

      7.    The facts and circumstance of the decision in

Taruna Batra (supra) can be distinguished in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. In all cases, it cannot be

said that the house of a mother-in-law or a father-in-law

cannot be styled as the shared household of their daughter-

in-law. If a girl, along with her husband, has stayed in a

particular house either belongs to her mother-in-law or the

father-in-law after her marriage, and if she was married by

their son through a marriage arranged by them, and brought

as the wedded bride to that house with their blessings, they

cannot subsequently turn against her with a stand that it is

not her shared household. Such a marriage arranged by the

parents of the bridegroom and the further permission to

bring the married bride to that house by giving an


opportunity to the son and the daughter-in-law to stay there,

definitely gives an implied authority and right to the girl to

reside in that house by treating it as the shared household.

Otherwise, the parents of the bridegroom ought not to have

permitted to make use of their house for the stay of the bride

as well as the bridegroom, after the marriage. If they permit

the bride as well as the bridegroom to use that house, on

marriage as the shared household, they cannot be heard to

say that the girl cannot treat that house as the shared

household.

      8. If, as a matter of fact, a girl is brought to the house

by the bridegroom on his own without the junction of his


parents, of course, the girl cannot forward a claim on such a


house belonging to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law as


the shared household. In this particular case, the husband


of the woman is no where in the picture. He has virtually


abandoned the girl and has gone abroad. It seems that his


parents are hand in gloves with him and they want to see



that the girl is thrown to the street. The marriage of the girl

was an arranged marriage, and she was brought not to the


street after marriage, whereas she was brought to the house


in question. Party respondents have no case that her


husband has another house of his own wherein they were


living together. Had she been made aware before the


marriage that she would not be permitted to reside in that


house and she would not be permitted to treat that house as


shared household, she would not have agreed for such a


marriage. In such a case, no sensible parents of a girl will


give their daughter in marriage to such a person. Therefore,


having accepted the girl as their daughter-in-law and


permitted to be taken to that house for her stay there, they


cannot be permitted to show the doors to her, on a mere


claim that the house belongs to the mother-in-law.


      9. The learned Senior Counsel has argued that thalak

has been pronounced by the husband of the woman in this

case, and hence, the woman is not entitled to have recourse


to the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005. Whether she is a divorced wife or not, if

there was a domestic relationship and the house was used

as a shared household even for a moment, the woman is

entitled to claim the right of residence in that shared

household.

      10. The present hue and cry is that this Court has

passed an illegal order by permitting the parents of the

woman also to have an entry into the house. This is a case

wherein a house was deliberately locked and abandoned

and the respondents had gone away from the spot. A young

woman alone cannot reside in that house. In that particular

circumstance, this Court was of the view that the woman

along with her parents could be granted permission to gain

entry into the house.

      11. The respondents have got a case that the house

belongs to the mother-in-law and hence, the parents of the

woman should not be permitted to stay there. Of course,


they can be ordered to move away by leaving the girl,

provided the respondents are ready to face the necessary

consequences in the matter. Let the woman reside in the

house alone. She should not be restrained from residing in

the house. The petitioner shall not take her parents along

with her in the house and they should not reside in the

house. At the same time, at any reasonable hours, they can

pay visits to their daughter at the house. Till the learned

Magistrate passes an order on merits, this order shall

continue. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass final

orders in the matter within a period of two months from

today. The Sub Inspector of Police, Eravipuram shall see

that this order is complied with in letter and spirit.

      In the result, this O.P.(Crl) is disposed of with the above

said directions.


                                Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment