Palak a journalism graduate believes in simplifying the complicated and writing about the extraordinary lives of ordinary people. She calls herself a " hodophile" or in layman words- a person who loves to travel.
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday, October 15, said that the daughter-in-law has the right to live in her husband's parents' house under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The apex court stated domestic violence inflicted on women is "rampant" in the country and they are subjected to violence in some form or the other on an everyday basis. It termed the 2005 law on domestic abuse as a "milestone" and observed that the wife gets a 'shared household' of the joint family.
Three-judge bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan overrules the 2006 S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra verdict wherein it was said that a wife only has rights over the property of her husband. Court rules that the wife has rights over the shared household too. #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/CCDQlpoORF— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) October 15, 2020
The top court said a woman resigns her fate to the never-ending cycle of enduring violence and discrimination as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a partner, or a single woman in her lifetime.
The three-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan reinterpreted the definition of 'shared household' in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act to mean that the wife of domestic violence has the legal right in the shared property of the family and also in the ancestral house of her mother-in-law.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta for the respondent daughter in law had argued that if it is a joint family property then the totality of the case needs to be seen and that she has a right to reside in the house. The top court has accepted the submission.— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) October 15, 2020
"The reason why most cases of domestic violence are never reported is due to the social stigma of the society and the attitude of the women themselves, where women are expected to be subservient, not just to their male counterparts but also to the male's relatives," a bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan observed, reported NDTV.
It further said that a number of factors including non-retaliation and submission by women against abuse, absence of appropriate laws addressing women's issues, ignorance of the existing legislation enacted for them, and social stigma make them vulnerable.
"In both the proceedings, no emergency relief/reliefs is/are available to the victim. Also, the relationships outside the marriage were not recognized. This set of circumstances ensured that a majority of women preferred to suffer in silence, not out of choice but of compulsion," the bench, which also comprised R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah, stated.
It said "the progress of any society depends on its ability to protect and promote the rights of its women. Guaranteeing equal rights and privileges to women by the Constitution of India had marked the step towards the transformation of the status of the women in this country."
The observations came in a judgment in which the top court held that the relief granting right to a residence to a married woman under the domestic violence law by a criminal court is "relevant" and can be considered even in civil proceedings seeking her eviction from the matrimonial home.
Thank you for subscribing.
We have sent you a confirmation email.