Supreme Court Ruling by Justice M.B. Snehalatha Affirms That Widow Retains Right to Matrimonial Home Despite Husband’s Death Under Domestic Violence Act

Introduction

The ruling that was handed down by the Kerala High Court in the case known as Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 286 of 2018 reaffirms that a woman is legally entitled to reside in the house that she shares with her spouse without interference.

On May 23, 2025, Justice M.B. Snehalatha was the one who determined the outcome. Specifically, it highlights the aim of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is to assist victims, and it clarifies crucial concepts that are included in the Act.

Facts of the Case

Meena, the individual who is being questioned, was married to Gopi and resided in Malampuzha, Palakkad, with him and their children; she was pregnant at the time.

It is reported that after Gopi passed away on June 14, 2009, his mother, siblings, and sisters attempted to force Meena and her children out of the house that they all shared together. Under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, she submitted a request for protection and residence orders.

In spite of the fact that the Magistrate had rejected her petition on the grounds that there was no “domestic relationship,” the Sessions Court overruled that decision and provided her with the assistance that she required. Next, the family went to the High Court in order to request a review of the decision.

For More Updates & Regular notes, Join Our WhatsApp group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Definitions under the DV Act

There were four significant terms that the High Court considered:

All actions or inactions that cause harm to or put a woman’s physical or mental health at danger, including but not limited to physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or financial abuse, are considered to be instances of domestic violence, as defined by Section 3.

Aggrieved Person (Section 2(a)):A woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship and says she has been a victim of domestic abuse. * **Shared Household (Section 2(s)):** A home where the person who is upset resides or has resided, whether they own it or rent it from the other person or the joint family.

*According to Section 2(f), a “Domestic Relationship” is defined as a relationship that is based on marriage or blood, or anything that is similar to marriage, including living together as a family.

Right to Reside in the Matrimonial Home

Any woman who has been harmed is granted the right to reside in the shared house by Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, regardless of who owns the home or what title it possesses. Women are protected from being compelled to relocate or being homeless by this law. It is essential for women to have a place to reside in order to maintain their safety and dignity.

Judicial Reasoning

Meena was a person who had lived in the same house as Gopi since she was his widow, and the High Court stated that she was an aggrieved person as she had lived there. The technical arguments that she was not covered by the Act because she lived with her parents or owned her own home were rejected by the court.

A strong emphasis was placed by the court on the fact that the objective of the law is to interpret social regulations in a wide and purposeful manner, prioritizing effective solutions above stringent standards.

Fundamental Issues Addressed

Specifically, there were two primary issues that were resolved. In the first place, the phrase “domestic relationship” encompasses the relationship that a widow has with her in-laws, which safeguards her rights even after the death of her primary spouse.

Second, the fact that you own other property does not indicate that you are deprived of the right to reside in any location. As a result of the verdict, it became abundantly evident that the protection afforded by the Domestic Violence Act is not restricted to couples that are now cohabitating, but rather encompasses any shared habitation that occurred in the past.

Conclusion

Meena’s claim to the house she shared with her husband was supported by the Kerala High Court in the case of Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 286 of 2018, which enhanced the protective framework of the Domestic Violence Act.

With this finding, it is made quite apparent that technical concerns cannot be allowed to impede the primary objective of the Act, which is to safeguard women from being subjected to domestic abuse and to guarantee that they have a secure place to reside.