The Kerala High Court has clarified that the pendency of a civil suit regarding ownership or title of a property cannot block the removal of an alleged abuser from a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The ruling came from Justice C. Jayachandran in a case where a Sessions Court had overturned a Magistrate’s order directing a man to vacate the shared household. The Magistrate had passed the order under Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act after an 84-year-old woman filed a complaint against her son.
"The title or other legal interest of the respondent in the shared household is of little significance. Instead, what is significant is the right of residence of the aggrieved person in the shared household in terms of the D.V. Act and the protection of that right by shielding her from any act of domestic violence."
The Court emphasized that proceedings under the DV Act and civil suits serve different purposes. The DV Act focuses on protecting victims from domestic abuse, while civil suits deal with property rights and ownership. Therefore, one cannot be used to block the other.
Case Background
The elderly petitioner had approached the Magistrate Court alleging harassment by her son. The Magistrate had granted her relief under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act, including a directive for the son to leave the house. The Sessions Court, however, reversed this order, reasoning that a civil case concerning the house was already pending.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Secured Asset Possession Under Section 14 SARFAESI Act
The civil suit, filed by the petitioner's daughter, involves a settlement deed where the petitioner holds life interest in the property. The daughter is acting as the petitioner's power of attorney and had provided evidence in the civil case.
The son claimed that the proceedings under the DV Act were being misused by his sister using their mother for personal motives.
The High Court reiterated that under Section 36 of the DV Act, relief under the Act is in addition to any other legal remedies and is not overridden by a civil suit.
Read Also:- Justice K. Somashekar Appointed Chief Justice of Manipur High Court
However, the Court did raise concerns over the admissibility of evidence given by a power of attorney holder. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Janki Vashdeo Bhojani v IndusInd Bank Ltd., the Court stated that a power of attorney cannot depose on matters that require first-hand knowledge, especially when the complainant is alive.
Despite this, the High Court found enough merit in the original complaint and supporting documents, including the FIR and final police report, to justify reconsideration of the Magistrate's order.
"Substantial justice should not be thwarted on technical grounds."
The Sessions Court was instructed to record the petitioner’s own testimony within three months. The respondent, i.e., the son, was to be given full opportunity to cross-examine his mother. This step ensures both the victim's protection and the accused’s right to a fair hearing.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Omana Thomas v Ajith Prakash and Others
- Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 1197 of 2023
- Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocates Manu Roy, A. K. Neslin, S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
- Respondents’ Counsel: Advocates C. P. Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N. Nath, Rassal Janardhanan A., and others
