Domestic Violence law can’t be used to make husband pay for flat under construction: Bombay HC
Wife had stated that the husband is required to pay EMIs for an under-construction flat on account of it being as 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence law;
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a husband cannot be compelled to pay instalments for an under-construction flat merely because it is jointly registered with his estranged wife.
Court held that such a property does not qualify as a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed that the flat in suburban Malad, though jointly owned, was still under construction, never occupied by either party, and therefore fell outside the purview of Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
“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,” the Court observed.
Facts of the Case
The wife had challenged concurrent orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court that refused to direct her husband to continue paying EMIs for the property, which she claimed as the shared household.
The husband, however, argued that the couple never resided in the flat, and that divorce proceedings had been pending since 2020.
Court's Observations
"The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 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 Court highlighted.
It stated that the victims right of residence is covered under Section 19 of the DV Act, but the kind of relief claimed by the Petitioner, unfortunately does not fit under any of the reliefs provided under Section 19 of the DV Act.
The Single Judge Bench held that Section 19 of the DV Act protects a woman’s right to reside in a shared household where she is actually living, or to seek alternate accommodation, but does not extend to under-construction properties not in possession of either party.
“The prayer made by the Petitioner 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,” the Court ruled, dismissing the wife’s plea.
Conclusively, the Court ordered, "Hence, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded vide order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2024, thereby confirming the order dated 03.06.2024, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, in CC No.182/DV/2022. The prayer made by the Petitioner is not capable of being granted considering the scope of Section 19(d) and (e) of the D.V. Act."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.