Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), seeking to direct the respondent-husband to pay the remaining two instalments for the “shared household” while the divorce proceeding was undergoing. A Single Judge Bench of Manjusha Deshpande, J., while dismissing the petition of the wife, held that since the property/flat, was still under construction and not in possession of either of the parties, therefore, it would not fall within the purview of “shared household”, as defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, further the kind of relief claimed by the wife, unfortunately did not fit under any of the reliefs provided under Section 19 of the DV Act.
Background:
The couple got married on 11-5-2013. After the marriage, they began residing in Thane in a rented premises. According to the wife, she was subjected to physical and emotional domestic violence by the husband. In 2019, the husband moved to Seattle in the United States of America (‘USA’), where he worked as a Senior Software Development Engineer. It was alleged that during his stay in the USA, the husband engaged in an adulterous relationship with another woman.
In February 2020, the husband returned to Mumbai, and the couple attempted to reconcile their relationship based on his assurance that he would permanently shift to Mumbai, settle down, and that they would start their own family. As a gesture of commitment, the husband executed a registered “Agreement for Sale” for a flat, for which a loan was availed by him. However, in May 2022, the wife filed a domestic violence complaint against the husband, alleging that he would get angry and threaten to stop making payments towards rent, electricity, etc.
An interim order in February 2023 directed the husband to pay interim maintenance from the date of the application. The husband had been paying monthly rent and maintenance until May 2022, but stopped paying rent from June 2022 onwards, following the filing of a domestic violence complaint. The wife was thus constrained to file an application for a distress warrant against the husband, which was served after his continued disobeying of the interim maintenance order. The wife, listed as a joint owner, received a demand letter for the 7th instalment from the developer, while the husband unilaterally and arbitrarily informed the developer of his disinterest in purchasing the flat and instructed them to sell it to someone else.
As a result, the wife filed an application seeking directions to the husband’s employer to pay arrears and future interim maintenance. Meanwhile, the bank from whom the husband had availed a loan approached the wife for pending instalments. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the agreement due to non-payment within 30 days, the wife sought an urgent hearing of the interim application, requesting directions to the husband to pay the remaining two EMIs or direct his employer to pay the balance to the developer and further prayed to restrain him from creating any third-party interest in the shared household.
The wife alleged that there was a “domestic relationship” between them and since she had no place to reside, she had filed the application seeking directions to the husband to pay the instalments of the house, which was her “shared household”. Moreover, she argued that her case fell under Section 19 of the DV Act, and the broad definition of “shared household” included various domestic arrangements, even a future residence the couple intended to share.
The husband contended that Section 2(s) of the DV Act required the aggrieved person to have resided in the “shared household” at any point during the domestic relationship, either alone or with him. Since the subject property was still under construction and had not yet come into his possession, he alleged that it did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Act.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the DV Act is a social welfare legislation intended to protect victims of domestic violence and abuse within the family, wherein the provisions ensured that victims were provided financially, protected from being ousted from their “shared household” where they resided, and could even seek alternate accommodation or a direction to pay rent for it. The Court further observed that the victim’s right of residence was covered under Section 19 of the DV Act, however, the kind of relief claimed by the wife, unfortunately, did not fit under any of the reliefs provided in Section 19 of the DV Act.
The Court highlighted that the flat booked by the husband was claimed by the wife to be the “shared household”, however, the right provided under Section 19 of the DV Act was essentially based on the right to reside in a household that was in existence. The Court observed that possession of the alleged “shared household” had not yet been handed over, and the instalments had not been fully paid, therefore, it would be an overreach to direct the husband to pay the remaining instalments or to instruct the employer to deduct the instalments from his salary and remit them to the bank.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that neither party was occupying the said premises, nor had they ever resided in the flat/house and not even intended to live there which could be inferred from the fact that the husband had already initiated divorce proceedings against the wife in 2020 and since the property/flat, was still under construction and not in possession of either of the parties, therefore, it did not fall within the purview of “Shared Household”, as defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2571, decided on 4-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Archit Jaykar a/w. Bhoomi Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyar, APP — Respondent-State;
Raghavendra S. Mehrotra a/w. Irfan Shaikh, Maddhat Shaikh and Mohini Tekale i/b. Lawkhart Legal, Advocate and Legal Consultants, Advocate – Respondent 2 and 4.
