In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that a flat under construction, even if jointly registered in the name of both spouses, cannot be considered a "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), 2005. Therefore, a husband cannot be directed to pay pending installments for such a property.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande, presiding over the matter, delivered this verdict while hearing Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 424 of 2025).
“In the present case, the possession of the alleged ‘Shared Household’ is not yet handed over, the instalments are still not fully paid. It would be stretching it too far to direct the husband to pay the remaining instalments or direct the employer to deduct the same from his salary,”
— Justice Manjusha Deshpande
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Srinwati Mukherji, had filed a domestic violence case in May 2022 alleging physical and emotional abuse by her husband, Prateek Thukral. She sought a court direction to compel him to pay the remaining two installments for a flat in Malad (West), Mumbai, jointly registered in their names and currently under construction.
The petitioner claimed the flat was a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and invoked Section 19(d) and (e) to secure installment payments as residence protection.
She argued that:
- She is a joint owner of the flat.
- Her husband had already defaulted on interim maintenance and rent.
- The right to reside includes not only actual but constructive residence.
Read also:- Income Tax Notice on Invalid PAN Quashed by Kerala High Court
The petitioner’s counsel cited judgments, including Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, asserting a broader interpretation of "shared household".
The husband’s legal team, led by Advocate Raghavendra Mehrotra, strongly opposed the claim, highlighting:
“The Petitioner has never resided in the said flat, nor was possession ever taken. Hence, the property does not qualify as a shared household under the statutory definition,”
— Counsel for the Respondent
They emphasized that Section 2(s) of the DV Act requires actual residence or at least constructive possession, which did not apply in this case.
Justice Deshpande upheld the previous decisions of both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, which had rejected the petitioner’s plea.
“The flat in question is still under construction and not yet handed over. None of the parties have ever resided there, nor is there an intention to do so. On this basis, the property cannot be treated as a shared household.”
— Bombay High Court
Read also:- Allahabad HC Caps Photo-Identification Fee at ₹125, Bars Compulsory Higher Charges for Litigants
The Court acknowledged the welfare intent of the DV Act, noting that it aims to protect victims from being ousted from existing residences. However, it stated that the petitioner’s request did not fall within the permissible reliefs under Section 19.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming that the nature of relief sought could not be granted under the DV Act.
“There is no perversity in the Sessions Court’s order dated October 19, 2024. The writ petition stands dismissed.”
— Justice Deshpande
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 424 of 2025)