The Bombay High Court recently clarified an important question under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court ruled that an under-construction property does not fall within the definition of a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the scope of residence rights of women under domestic violence proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case involved a wife who filed a writ petition seeking directions against her husband to pay pending instalments for a flat booked during their marriage. She argued that the flat constituted her “shared household”, and therefore, under Section 19 of the DV Act, she was entitled to seek reliefs related to residence and maintenance.
The couple married in 2013 and initially lived in rented accommodation in Thane. Allegations of physical and emotional abuse led the wife to file a domestic violence complaint in 2022. Meanwhile, the husband had booked a flat under a registered agreement for sale, but the property was still under construction and not handed over. When instalments remained unpaid, the wife approached the Court to compel the husband (or his employer) to clear the dues and restrain him from creating third-party rights.
Key Legal Issues
What qualifies as a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act?
Does an under-construction property, never occupied by the parties, come under this definition?
Whether Section 19 of the DV Act allows a wife to claim instalment payments for an under-construction flat as part of her right of residence?
Arguments Presented
Wife’s Argument:
The wife claimed that the booked flat represented their future residence and thus should qualify as a “shared household.” She argued for a broad interpretation of Section 2(s), stating that the right of residence should extend to properties intended for shared living.
Husband’s Argument:
The husband contended that Section 2(s) requires actual residence in the property during the domestic relationship. Since the flat was under construction, never possessed, and never occupied, it could not qualify as a shared household. He also pointed out that divorce proceedings were already pending since 2020.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Manjusha Deshpande examined the legislative intent behind the DV Act, emphasising its role as a social welfare law aimed at protecting women from being ousted from their current residences.
The Court noted:
Section 19 reliefs are tied to the right to reside in an existing household.
An under-construction flat, not handed over or occupied, cannot be stretched to fit within the statutory meaning of “shared household.”
Directing the husband to pay future instalments or deduct them from his salary would amount to granting reliefs not envisaged under the DV Act.
Judgment of the Bombay High Court
The Court dismissed the wife’s petition, holding that:
The under-construction flat was not a shared household under Section 2(s).
Neither party had possession or had ever resided in the flat.
Reliefs claimed by the wife did not fall within the ambit of Section 19 of the DV Act.
Thus, the Bombay High Court reinforced that the right of residence under the DV Act applies only to properties actually lived in by the couple during their domestic relationship, not to prospective or future residences.
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment sets a clear precedent for matrimonial and domestic violence disputes involving under-construction or unoccupied properties. It ensures that the scope of “shared household” is not expanded beyond what the DV Act intended, thereby balancing the rights of both spouses.
For women, this means that while the DV Act strongly safeguards their right to reside in the existing matrimonial home, it cannot be stretched to include properties that were never occupied or intended to be lived in jointly.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling provides much-needed clarity on the definition of a “shared household” under the DV Act. It underscores that only an existing and occupied household qualifies for protection under Section 2(s). An under-construction property, even if jointly booked, does not grant residence rights under the Act.
This case is an important reminder that while the DV Act is remedial and protective, its reliefs are confined to the framework provided by law.
