D. Sudheer v. Anusha R. Nair (13th January 2025)

The Kerala High Court has ruled that reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), specifically residence orders under Section 19, cannot be extended to a divorced woman after the dissolution of her marriage.

Justice K. Babu, presiding as a single-judge bench, clarified that the prerequisite “domestic relationship” under the DV Act ceases to exist once a marriage is dissolved. The observation came in response to a petition filed by a woman alleging domestic violence against her former husband and his relatives. The petitioner had been granted a residence order by the Magistrate based on prima facie evidence, despite a lack of medical documentation or independent witnesses. This order was upheld by the Sessions Court but subsequently challenged by the respondents in the High Court.

Key Contentions

• Respondents’ Arguments: The respondents contended that since the marriage had been dissolved by a division bench of the High Court on April 8, 2014, the petitioner no longer qualified for relief under Section 19 of the DV Act. They argued that the Magistrate erred in granting the residence order based on mere prima facie satisfaction.
• Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner argued that the DV Act is designed to protect women from abuse irrespective of marital status and that relief under the Act should not be negated by subsequent events such as divorce.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The court distinguished the evidentiary standards required for relief under different sections of the DV Act:

• Section 18: Allows for interim protection orders based on prima facie evidence.
• Section 19: Requires a higher standard of proof, though not as stringent as “beyond reasonable doubt.”

Referring to the precedent in Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree (2021), the court acknowledged that a divorced woman could be considered an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act. However, it emphasized that residence rights under Section 19 are limited to shared households during the subsistence of the marriage.

The court observed that the petitioner was no longer residing in a shared household and that an alternative accommodation had already been provided. It held that the petitioner’s residence rights ceased following the dissolution of the marriage on April 8, 2014.

Conclusion

The court ruled that:

1. A woman cannot claim reinstatement into a shared household or demand alternative accommodation under Section 19 of the DV Act after divorce.
2. The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the residence order only until April 8, 2014, the date of divorce.

Justice K. Babu concluded:
“In the present case, the petitioner is not residing in a shared household. As the marriage was dissolved by decree on 08.04.2014, the domestic relationship ceased to exist. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act beyond that date.”