Under-construction flat not a ‘shared household’ under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC

Bombay HC ruled an under-construction flat isn't a "shared household" under the DV Act, denying a woman's plea for her husband to pay its cost.

MUMBAI: In a significant ruling on the interpretation of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, the Bombay high court has held that an under-construction flat cannot be considered a “shared household” under the law, and therefore, a man cannot be compelled to pay its balance cost to secure his estranged wife’s right of residence.

Under-construction flat not a ‘shared household’ under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC

Justice Manjusha Deshpande passed the order on Friday while dismissing a petition filed by a 45-year-old woman from Goregaon. She had sought directions to her estranged husband, a 55-year-old software engineer working in the US, to pay the remaining instalments of a ₹3.52-crore flat in Malad West booked in their joint names.

The court noted that since the possession of the flat had not been handed over and the payments were still incomplete, the property could not be considered a “shared household” within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The couple married in May 2013 and initially lived in a rented flat in Thane. In 2019, the man moved to the US for work. According to the woman, during his time abroad, he had an extra-marital affair. Despite strained relations, she said she gave the marriage another chance when he returned to India in February 2020 and promised to settle down with her in Mumbai.

In the course of those proceedings, she sought an order directing him to pay the balance consideration for the Malad flat, claiming it was necessary to protect her right of residence under section 19 of the DV Act.

The magistrate court rejected her plea on June 3, 2024. The order was upheld by the Dindoshi sessions court on October 19, 2024. She then moved the high court in appeal.

Dismissing her plea, justice Deshpande observed that although the DV Act protects a woman’s right to reside in the shared household, the definition requires actual possession or residence. “The flat is under construction and not in possession of either party. Therefore, it would not qualify as a shared household,” the court ruled.

Directing the husband or his employer to pay pending instalments would be “stretching it too far”, the court added, concluding that such a direction was beyond the scope of the DV Act.