Shivani Thakur
Published on: May 24, 2022 at 19:30 IST
The Supreme Court in the recent judgment, the Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in the case “Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi” has given an expanded meaning to the expression “Joint Family” as “persons living together jointly as a family” used in Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Court held that, “Joint family does not mean a joint family as understood in Hindu Law. It would also include persons as a joint family such as foster children who live with other members who are related by consanguinity, marriage or by adoption”.
“In the Indian societal context, the right of a woman to reside in the shared household is of unique importance. The reasons for the same are not far to see. In India, most women are not educated nor are they earning; neither do they have financial independence so as to live singly.”
“She may be dependent for residence in a domestic relationship not only for emotional support but for the aforesaid reasons. The said relationship may be by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or is a part of or is living together in a joint family.”
“A majority of women in India do not have independent income or financial capacity and are totally dependent vis-à-vis their residence on their male or other female relations who may have a domestic relationship with her”.