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, V 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
No comments:
Post a Comment