Husband Can't Be Asked To Pay Instalments For Under-Construction Flat Under DV Act, Not 'Shared Household': Bombay High Court
A flat under construction, though registered jointly in the name of the spouses, cannot be termed a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband cannot be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the flat in question was still under construction and that the couple has not resided in the same yet.
"In the present case, the possession of the alleged 'Shared Household', is not yet handed over, the instalments are still not fully paid. In the circumstances, it would be stretching it too far to direct the husband to pay the remaining instalments or direct the employer to deduct the instalments from his salary and pay it to the Bank. None of the parties are occupying the said premises, they have never ever resided in that flat/house, nor do they intend to live. More so, on the background of the fact that the husband has already initiated divorce proceedings against the wife, in 2020 itself," the high court said in its July 4 order.
The PWDV Act, the judge said, is a social welfare legislation intended to provide protection to victims of domestic violence and abuse occurring within the family. The provisions ensure that the victims are provided financially, as well as protection from being ousted from their “Shared Household”, where the victim is residing, victim can even seek alternate accommodation, or direction to pay rent of the alternate accommodation.
"The victims right of residence is covered under Section 19 of the DV Act, but the kind of relief claimed by the Petitioner wife, unfortunately does not fit under any of the reliefs provided under Section 19 of the DV Act. The prayer made by the wife would not be maintainable since the property/flat, is 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. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded vide order dated October 19, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge," Justice Deshpande held.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by a wife challenging the orders of a Magistrate and also a Sessions court, both refusing to direct the husband to pay the instalments towards an under-construction flat in suburban Malad, which the wife claimed to be a 'shared household.'
The husband argued that the flat in question cannot be termed a 'shared household' as the couple did not reside in the said flat for a single day.
The court accepted the contention of the husband and therefore dismissed the wife's plea.
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 424 of 2025)
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Archit Jaykar and Bhoomi Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent 2: Advocates Raghavendra Mehrotra, Irfan Shaikh, Maddhat Shaikh and Mohini Tekale instructed by Lawkhart Legal, Advocate and Legal Consultants
Counsel for Respondent State: Additional Public Prosecutor Dhanlakshmi Krishnaiyar