New Delhi: A city court has allowed a plea of a woman, engaged in disputes with her husband and in-laws, seeking entry of her family members in her matrimonial house and said people are social animals who have a right to live in the company of relatives.
Additional Sessions Judge Vikas Dhull allowed the woman's plea challenging a trial court's order which had granted right of residence to the woman in the matrimonial home but denied the entry of her family members there.
"The order passed by the trial court affects the right of social life of the appellant (woman). A man is a social animal and he has a right to live in the company of his family/ relatives. Denial of right to company of family/relatives to appellant amounts to denial of social life. Therefore, on this ground itself, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside," the sessions court said.
While allowing the woman's appeal, the court noted that she has not yet installed CCTV cameras in her shared household as directed by the magisterial court earlier.
"Therefore, while allowing the present appeal, part of the impugned order restricting the entry of family members of the woman into her shared household is accordingly set aside subject to her first complying with the part of the impugned order of July 4, 2016 regarding installation of two CCTV cameras at her shared household," it said.
The sessions court said since CCTV cameras will help in finding out the aggressor and the victim, in case of any future quarrel, there was no reason for the trial court to have curtailed the right of family members of the appellant to enter into her shared household.
The court passed the order in a domestic violence case lodged by the Delhi woman against her husband and in-laws.
The trial court denied entry of the woman's family members into her matrimonial house on the ground that there was bitterness and allegations made by the woman and her in- laws against each other.
It had said until the parties start living peacefully, no family member of the woman would enter the shared household except in case of distress or illness.
The woman said in her appeal that by the trial court order, her basic right of social communication had been curtailed and this denial undermined her right to live with dignity.
The man and his parents submitted before the sessions court that the magisterial court had rightly restricted the entry of the woman's family members in the shared household, after taking into account the apprehension of quarrel between both sides.
