A woman had sought directions against her husband to clear the outstanding dues for a residential flat jointly booked by them in 2020 as part of a reconciliation effort.
The Bombay High Court has held that a property still under construction and not occupied by either spouse does not meet the definition of a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
As a result, the husband cannot be compelled to pay the installments for such a jointly booked flat, the Court ruled.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande made these remarks while hearing a petition filed by a woman seeking an order directing her estranged husband to pay pending installments. The Court found that the property did not meet the required criteria for protection under the Act.
It further emphasized that the statutory safeguard against dispossession under the Domestic Violence Act is applicable only to properties that are complete, physically existent, and suitable for occupation.
“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 single-judge ruled.
The 45-year-old woman had approached the Court seeking directions for her husband to clear the outstanding dues for a residential flat in Mumbai’s Malad, which the couple had jointly booked in 2020 during an effort to reconcile.
Married in 2013, the couple lived together on and off until the husband moved to the USA for employment. Following allegations of domestic violence, the Court granted an interim maintenance order in 2023.
However, the husband allegedly ceased paying rent and did not comply with the maintenance order, prompting further legal proceedings.
When the developer demanded the next installment for the Malad flat, the woman approached the High Court, claiming it to be a shared household and seeking an order directing her husband to pay the dues for the under-construction property.
Earlier, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had partly allowed her request by prohibiting the husband from creating third-party rights over the flat but refused to direct him to make the installment payments. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court.
Challenging the lower court’s ruling, the woman argued that the flat was jointly booked in both their names, most installments had already been paid, and she retained a right to reside there even though it was still under construction.
The husband contested her claim, stating that neither party had ever lived in the flat, it was not ready for possession, and it was never mentioned in the original domestic violence complaint.
While acknowledging that the definition of “shared household” under the law is interpreted broadly to protect aggrieved parties, the Court clarified that such protection does not apply to properties that are incomplete and unfit for occupation. Accordingly, it upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
