Introduction
The loss of a
spouse brings emotional turmoil, but for many Indian women, it also brings
uncertainty about something even more fundamental — the right to remain in
their matrimonial home. While social stigma and family disputes often push
widows out of their homes, the law recognizes and protects their right to
residence. A recent judgment by the Kerala High Court reaffirms this vital
right under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Legal
Issue
Does a widow
retain the right to reside in her matrimonial home after the death of her
husband? Can her in-laws evict her merely because the husband is no more?
The law says: No,
they cannot. A woman continues to be an “aggrieved person” under the
Domestic Violence Act even after the husband's death, especially when the abuse
or threat comes from in-laws.
The Case
That Reaffirmed the Right
In Sreelatha
v. Sreekumar & Ors (2025), the Kerala High Court examined a case where
a woman, after her husband's death, was asked to vacate her matrimonial home by
her in-laws. She approached the Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act,
seeking protection and residence rights. The lower court rejected her
application, stating she no longer had a domestic relationship since the
husband had passed away.
However, the
High Court overturned this decision, stating that:
"The
death of the husband does not dissolve the matrimonial bond for the purpose of
residence rights under the DV Act. The woman’s relationship with the shared
household and its members continues to exist."
What the Law
Says
Under Section
2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a
domestic relationship includes living together in a shared household through
marriage. Importantly, this definition is not extinguished by the husband's
death.
Section
17(1) guarantees a woman’s right to reside in a shared household, whether
or not she has any legal title or beneficial interest in the property.
The Act also
allows a widow to seek protection orders, residence orders, and even monetary
relief against in-laws who harass, threaten, or unlawfully dispossess her.
Supreme
Court’s Earlier Stand
The Kerala High
Court ruling aligns with earlier judgments of the Supreme Court. In Satish
Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020), the Supreme Court clarified that a
wife’s right to reside in a shared household exists independently of
ownership and cannot be thwarted by technicalities.
Similarly, in Bina
Modi v. Charu Modi (2021), it was clarified that the legal status of
residence is not extinguished by strained family relations or even ownership
disputes.
Practical
Implications
This ruling is
a significant relief for countless widows who face threats of eviction. It sets
a judicial precedent that:
Residence is
a right, not a favor.In-laws cannot arbitrarily evict a widow.Protection
under DV Act survives even after the husband’s death.
Conclusion
Law must serve
the vulnerable. Widows, often among the most marginalized, need the security of
a home. This judgment affirms their dignity, security, and legal
entitlement. As advocates, it is our duty to ensure that such women are
made aware of their rights and supported in asserting them.
The matrimonial
home remains her home — not by emotion alone, but by law.
