Domestic Violence Act | Order Of 'Alternate Residence' Can Be Made Instead Of 'Shared Residence' If Interest Of Both Parties Served: Kerala HC

Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed:

“If an order of residence would result in total negation and annihilation of the rights of the respondents and an alternate arrangement would reasonably protect the right of residence and interest of both parties, the court shall lean in favour of such an alternate arrangement.”

The petitioner sought for residence order under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) alleging that her son, daughter-in-law and mother of daughter-in-law are trying to evict her from the house she was residing in. The petitioner submitted that the concerned house was bought with the money they got after selling the property of her husband. The house was bought in the name of her son and daughter-in-law on the assurance that she and her husband would be looked after.

Son of the petitioner submitted that due to collapse of his business in Qatar, he owes money to his creditors. The Supreme Judicial Council, State of Qatar has ordered him to pay off his creditor and a travel ban is imposed on him. He argued that the house and property was bought using their own money and they had availed a loan of Rs. 30 Lakh for that. He needs to sell the property to pay his creditors in Qatar and to repay the house loan. If this is not done, the Bank will anyway take over the house and the petitioner would not be able to live there. Moreover, he would end up in jail in Qatar.

The Sessions Judge considering these arguments had directed the respondents to arrange for an alternate accommodation for the petitioner. The respondents then arranged for a house on rent. They also submitted that they are ready to pay the rent and maintain the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that when the shared household was available, the Sessions Court ought not to have ordered to give residence in an alternate place.

The Court held that the PWDV act itself discusses about 'alternate residence' as an alternative. It cannot be said that can be ordered only when the shared house is not available. The Court can decide based on the facts and circumstance of the case, whether protecting her right to live in a shared household or providing her an alternate household will meet the ends of justice, it said.

The Commission report said that the rented house is smaller than the shared household, but it has all necessary facilities. The Court directed the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 Lakh into petitioner's account from which she can pay the rent.

The petitioner should make subsequent payments into her account when the deposit amount is about to be exhausted, Court said and confirmed the order of Sessions' Court.

Counsel for petitioner: Advocates George Sebastian, Rajesh Rajan

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate R. Surendran, Public Prosecutor Adv. Sheeba Thomas

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 1039 of 2023

Case Title: Omana Somanadhan v Deepu Soman and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 434