In a notable interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Bombay High Court has ruled that an under-construction flat cannot be classified as a “shared household” under the law. Consequently, a man cannot be directed to pay the remaining instalments of such a property to secure his estranged wife’s right of residence.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande delivered the verdict on Friday while rejecting a petition filed by a 45-year-old Goregaon woman, who sought a direction for her 55-year-old estranged husband—currently working as a software engineer in the United States—to pay the pending balance of a ₹3.52 crore flat in Malad West, which was booked jointly in their names.
The court clarified that since the couple had not yet taken possession of the 1,029 sq ft apartment and the payment was incomplete, the property did not qualify as a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act.
The couple married in 2013 and initially lived in a rented flat in Thane. In 2019, the husband moved to the US, during which time the wife alleged he had an extramarital affair. When he returned to India in February 2020, the couple attempted to reconcile, and he booked the under-construction Malad flat as a gesture of commitment. However, the relationship deteriorated again, leading the woman to file a domestic violence complaint in 2021, citing continued harassment.
During those proceedings before the Borivali magistrate court, she invoked Section 19 of the Act, seeking a direction to compel her husband to pay the remaining amount for the Malad property to safeguard her residential rights.
Her application was rejected by the magistrate in June 2024 and subsequently upheld by the Dindoshi sessions court in October. She then approached the High Court in appeal.
In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that the DV Act ensures a woman’s right to reside in a shared household, but such a right is contingent upon actual residence or possession. “The flat is under construction and not in possession of either party. Therefore, it would not qualify as a shared household,” Justice Deshpande held.
The court further stated that directing the husband or his employer to cover pending payments would exceed the mandate of the law. “Such a direction would be stretching it too far,” the court noted, affirming that the Act does not extend to compelling financial commitments for incomplete properties not yet occupied.
