Even though a married woman lives at her husband’s home, it is wrong to presume that she has given up her residential status at her parents’ home, the Madras High Court (HC) has ruled.
The court made this observation while rejecting a plea where the appointment of a woman as the panchayat secretary was challenged on the ground that she was not the resident of the area considering she was married and lived with her husband elsewhere.
“A married woman though ordinarily lives at her husband’s place, cannot be presumed to have disowned her residential rights at her parents’ house on account of her marriage. For the purpose of getting a separate ration card after her marriage, her name would have got deleted from her parents’ ration card and included in her husband’s ration card. With that alone, it cannot be said that a married woman had severed her ties with her parents’ place and her residential status in respect of her parent’s house has come to a closure once and for all. The rules of marriage do not impose any such condition on a woman,” the single-judge bench of Justice RN Manjula said in its order dated September 30, 2023.
Stating that men and women go to several places for the sake of education or occupation in today’s world but still consider their native place as their permanent residence, the HC said that there was a notion that a married woman completely abandons her native place and assumes her husband’s place as her only place of residence.
The parents of the third respondent were still in her native place, Jayakondam, and she had every right to visit or stay with her parents at her own convenience or choice, it said.
“If a married woman chooses to live between her natal home and marital home on account of her employment, business or otherwise nothing can prevent her to exercise her option. To retain or waive the native address is at the will of a married woman or her family members in certain circumstances,” it said while deciding in favour of the woman in the G Mayakannan versus The District Collector case.
A woman would turn out to her parental abode for any reason and sometimes she would even prefer to stay there for any period of her choice with an understanding with her parental home inmates. The choice and the will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through patriarchal prism in order to deny her the residential status there, the court added.
| Got any questions or point of view on our article? We would love to hear from you. Write to our Editor-in-Chief Jhumur Ghosh at [email protected] |
An alumna of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal, Sunita Mishra brings over 16 years of expertise to the fields of legal matters, financial insights, and property market trends. Recognised for her ability to elucidate complex topics, her articles serve as a go-to resource for home buyers navigating intricate subjects. Through her extensive career, she has been associated with esteemed organisations like the Financial Express, Hindustan Times, Network18, All India Radio, and Business Standard.
In addition to her professional accomplishments, Sunita holds an MA degree in Sanskrit, with a specialisation in Indian Philosophy, from Delhi University. Outside of her work schedule, she likes to unwind by practising Yoga, and pursues her passion for travel.
[email protected]
Related Posts
Sub-registrar can’t cancel duly registered sale deed unilaterally: Madras HC.
Illegal for RWAs to collect transfer fee, rules Madras HC.
Homemaker wife has equal share in husband’s self-acquired property: HC.
Neglected parents can take back property from children: HC.
Karta can sell HUF property without consent from other members: SC.
Some RERA-prescribed sale agreement clauses are non-negotiable: MahaRERA .
