Bombay High Court
Srinwati Mukherji vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:26973
1/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 424 OF 2025
Srinwati Mukherji Petitioner
Age - 45 years;
Temporarily residing at :
3C - 1407 Mhada Complex, Prem Nagar,
S.V. Road, Goregaon, Mumbai - 400 104.
Versus
1) State of Maharashtra; Respondents
2) Prateek Thukral
Age - 55 years;
Residing at : Mapsko Casa Bella Tower,
N-2, Apartment 601 Sector 8,
Gurugram, Haryana - 122 004;
3) Anil Thukral
Age - 41 years;
4) Ranjana Thukral,
Age - 39 years;
Both 3 and 4 Residing at J8, 128,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110 027
and
1/80, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi - 110 027.
.....
Mr.Archit Jaykar a/w. Ms.Bhoomi Upadhyay, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mrs.Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyar, APP for Respondent - State.
Mr.Raghavendra S. Mehrotra a/w. Mr.Irfan Shaikh, Mr.Maddhat
Shaikh and Mohini Tekale i/b. M/s.Lawkhart Legal, Advocate
and Legal Consultants, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.
.....
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH RESERVED ON : 18th JUNE, 2025.
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date: PRONOUNCED ON : 4th JULY, 2025.
2025.07.05
11:02:51
+0530
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
2/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent
of parties.
3. The Petitioner by this Petition is seeking directions to the
Respondent No.2-husband to pay remaining two installments
for the “Shared Household”, or such other amount as is payable
to the developer towards the balance consideration in respect of
a flat admeasuring 1029 square feet carpet area situated at
Malad West, Mumbai. This prayer is made claiming to be under
Section 2(s) i.e. “Shared Household”, as defined under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as, “the DV Act“, for brevity).
4. The Petitioner is challenging the 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, (hereinafter referred to as “ACMM”, for brevity) in CC
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
3/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
No.182/DV/2022. Both the Courts have refused to entertain the
prayer made by the Petitioner on the ground that, such prayer
cannot be granted since the flat i.e. the “Shared Household” is
only booked and not in possession of either of the parties,
therefore it cannot be considered as a “Shared Household”, as
defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
5. The case of the Petitioner in the nutshell is that, the
Petitioner who was residing at Kolkata married to Respondent
No.2 on 11.05.2013. After her marriage, she shifted in
Maharashtra and started residing at Thane alongwith
Respondent No.2 in a rented premises. According to her, she
was subjected to physical and emotional domestic violence by
Respondent No.2. In the year 2019, Respondent No.2 shifted to
Seattle in United States of America (USA). He was working as a
Senior Software Development Engineer at Amazon Luna.
6. During his stay in the USA, Respondent No.2 had indulged
in adulterous relationship with other woman. In February 2020,
Respondent No.2 returned to Mumbai and the Petitioner and
Respondent No.2 attempted to reconcile their relationship. She
agreed to give a chance to their marriage, on the assurance
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
4/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
given by Respondent No.2 that he would permanently shift to
Mumbai and would settle down and they would start their own
family. As a gesture of commitment, the Respondent No.2 had
executed an registered “Agreement for Sale” of a Flat No.5704
admeasuring 1029 sq. ft. carpet area, situated at Tower 3, Auris
Serenity Guriya Pada, Malad West, Mumbai. The total
consideration of the flat, was Rs.3,52,00,000/-. A loan of
Rs.3,24,00,000/- was availed by Respondent No.2 from HDFC
Bank, Malad West Branch, Mumbai.
7. After that Respondent No.2 returned to USA in March
2020. In 2021, Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were residing in
a rented flat in Silver Oak Apartment, Lourdes Colony, Malad
West, Mumbai. However, while residing together, it is alleged
that Respondent No.2 would get angry and threatened to stop
making payment towards rent, electricity etc., and he would
often ask the Petitioner to go back to Kolkata and reside with
her parents. It is during this period, fed up with the behaviour of
Respondent No.2, the Petitioner filed DV complaint against
Respondent No.2 in May 2022.
8. On 02.02.2023, an interim order was passed by the
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
5/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
ACMM, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, directing Respondent No.2
to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month as interim
maintenance from the date of application. Though, Respondent
No.2 was paying rent of the flat of Rs.34,000/- per month
alongwith the maintenance charges of Rs.45,000/-, upto May
2022, no sooner the DV complaint was filed, Respondent No.2
stopped paying the rent for the Malad flat from June 2022. She
was not in a position to continue to pay the rent as a result, she
fell into arrears of rent over a year. To clear the pending dues,
she was forced to sell her car and subsequently vacated the
rented premises in February 2024.
9. Though order of interim maintenance was passed on
02.02.2023, the Respondent No.2 continued to disobey the
interim order of maintenance. Therefore, the Petitioner was
constrained to file an application for issuance of distress
warrant. Accordingly on 06.07.2023, a distress warrant came to
be issued by ACMM, which was also served on Respondent No.2,
who was then residing at Seattle in USA. In the meanwhile, as
per the schedule of payment, the 7 th installment of
Rs.52,32,000/- inclusive GST and TDS became due and payable
to the Developer in January 2024. Considering that the
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
6/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
Petitioner’s name is shown as a joint owner, the developer sent a
demand letter to the Petitioner.
10. In response to the E-mail, Respondent No.2 sent an E-mail
to the Developer’s representative alleging that, the Petitioner
had cheated on him, hence, he was not interested to purchase
the flat. Respondent No.2 unilaterally and arbitrarily asked the
developer to sell the flat to someone else. The Petitioner
immediately apprised the Developer about the pendency of the
DV complaint and the non-compliance of the interim order by
Respondent No.2.
11. Apart from the application for issuing of lookout notice
against Respondent No.2. The Petitioner has also filed an
application, for directions to the employer of the Respondent
No.2, to pay the arrears of interim maintenance alongwith
future interim maintenance. In the interregnum, the HDFC
Bank, from whom Respondent No.2 had availed the loan,
contacted the Petitioner and insisted that she should pay the
installments, which were due on behalf of Respondent No.2. In
the meanwhile, Respondent No.2 has made ad-hoc payment of
Rs.4,00,000/- to the Petitioner, towards the arrears of interim
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
7/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
maintenance against the due and payable sum of Rs.6,85,000/-.
On receiving the notice from the Developer for cancellation of
Agreement for non-receipt of installments within 30 days, an
application was moved for urgent hearing of the interim
application seeking directions to the Respondent-husband to
pay the remaining two EMIs of the flat or direct the employer of
Respondent-husband to pay the balance consideration to the
developer.
12. After hearing the Interim Application at length on
04.05.2024. The ACMM passed an order on 03.06.2024 thereby
refusing to entertain the prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the
Application. Prayer Clause (b) was for directions to Respondent
No.2 to pay balance consideration to the developer, which was
rejected. However, Prayer clause (c) came to be granted,
thereby restraining Respondent No.2 from creating any third
party interest in the shared household. The Petitioner preferred
Appeal against the impugned order passed by the ACMM 24 th
Court Borivali, Mumbai, but even the Appeal preferred against
the impugned order has been dismissed vide order dated
19.10.2024 by the Judge, Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai.
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
8/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
13. On this factual background, the Petitioner has approached
this Court. Mr.Jaykar learned advocate representing the
Petitioner has made following submissions:
(i) Admittedly, there is ‘domestic relationship’,
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2;
(ii) The Application is filed under Section 19(d) and
(e) of the DV Act for the directions to Respondent
No.2 to pay the EMI installments;
(iii) It is claimed that since the Petitioner has no place
to reside, she has filed the application seeking
directions to Respondent No.2 to pay the
installments of the house, which is her “Shared
Household”;
(iv) The “Agreement to Sale” has already been
executed in the joint names of the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 2, with only two installments
remaining to be paid;
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
9/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
(v) Since she has no place for her own residence, she
had every right to reside in the house that is on
the verge of completion;
(vi) According to the definition of “Shared Household”
irrespective of the fact that whether she has any
right, title or interest in the “Shared Household”,
Petitioner can seek protection orders;
(vii)In the present case, her right, title or interest in
the property cannot be disputed, since she is a co-
owner of the property.
(viii)Respondent No. 2 has not taken a stand that he
is economically incapacitated to pay the EMI.
Relying on Section 19(6) of the DV Act, it is
submitted that while making an order under Sub-
section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the
Respondent obligations relating to the discharge
of rent and other payments, having regard to the
financial needs and resources of the parties.
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
10/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
(ix) The Petitioner’s case very much fits in Clause (6)
of Section 19 of the DV Act. The definition of
“Shared Household”, is wide enough to
encompass various circumstances in a domestic
relationship, reflecting the legislature’s intent to
give it a wider/broader meaning. Therefore, even
the future house, which the couple proposes to
reside would fall within the definition of “Shared
Household”.
14. In this regard reliance is placed by the learned advocate
appearing for the Petitioner on the Judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi1, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘right to
reside in the Shared Household’, would include not only actual
residence, but also constructive residence in the “Shared
Household”. Right to reside therein, cannot be excluded vis-à-
vis an aggrieved person except in accordance with the
procedure established by law.
15. If a woman is sought to be evicted from the “Shared
Household”, she would be an aggrieved person.
1 (2022) 8 SCC 90
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
11/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
Relying on paragraph 42 of the judgment in of Prabha
Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Supra), it is submitted by the
Petitioner that the right to reside in a shared household cannot
be restricted to actual residence. Even in a case where the
woman in a domestic relationship and is residing elsewhere on
account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a
“Shared Household”. Not only she has right to reside in the
house of her husband, if it is located in another place, which is
also a shared household but also in the “Shared Household”
which may be in a different location, in which the family of her
husband resides. Therefore, she cannot be excluded from the
“Shared Household”, even if she has not actually resided
therein. Hence, the right to share household includes not only
actual residence, but also constructive residence in a shared
household i.e. right to reside therein which cannot be excluded
vis-a-vis an aggrieved women.
16. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also placed on
record the following Judgments:
i. Vandana Vs. T . Srikanth2; ii. Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Supra); 2 2007 (5) CTC 679; Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 ::: 12/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc iii. Aditya Anand Varma and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra3; iv. Rashmi Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. Manvi Sheth and Anr.4 & v. Mst Shameema Begum Vs. Javid Iqbal Khan5
In support of his submission about “Shared Household”, it
is contended that, parties in a domestic relationship need not
have resided at the place claimed as “Shared Household”; even
an intention or right to reside therein would fall within the
definition of “Shared Household” under Section 2(s) of the DV
Act. It is his contention that while passing the impugned order,
though the judgment in the case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh
Devi (Supra) was brought to the notice of the judge of the
Sessions Court, without taking into consideration the correct
interpretation of the term “shared household”, as explained in
the judgment of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Supra) , the
Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.
According to him, the plethora of Judgments which are cited by
him unequivocally makes it clear that, it is not mandatory for
the aggrieved person, when she is in a domestic relationship at
3 (2022) Bom CR (Cri) 48 : (2022) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) 67;
4 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 351;
5 CRM(M) No.36/2023, High Court of Jammun & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar;
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
13/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
any point of time, to actually reside in a “Shared Household”,
with those persons against whom relief is sought, so long as the
aggrieved woman had lived in a domestic relationship at any
point of time, and thus acquires a right to “Shared Household”
under Section 17(1) of the DV Act.
17. If a woman has a right to reside in a “Shared Household”
under Section 17(1) of the DV Act, and such woman is sought to
be wrongly evicted, she is a victim of domestic violence, and she
can seek relief under the provisions of DV Act, including
enforcement of her right to live in a “Shared Household”.
18. According to the learned Advocate, it is an undisputed fact
that the Petitioner is in a domestic relationship with the
Respondent No.2-husband, due to which she has every right to
reside in the house of the husband. Hence, the ACMM, as well as
the Sessions Judge, have failed in their duty to exercise the
jurisdiction conferred upon them under the DV Act.
19. Per contra, it is contended by the Advocate Mr.Mehrotra
appearing for Respondents, that the case of the Petitioner has to
be viewed in the light of the definition of Section 2(s) of the DV
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
14/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
Act. The meaning of “Shared Household” cannot travel beyond
what has been defined under Section 2(s), and interpreted by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though, the Petitioner has claimed
relief on the basis of the definition of “Shared Household”, in the
DV complaint filed by her, there is not even a whisper about the
premises at Auris Serenity, Malad to be her shared household.
Though the so called “Shared Household”, was booked in
February 2020 itself and the DV complaint is filed in May 2022,
and the order on the interim Application for rent was passed in
February 2023. Despite the considerable period that has
passed, during such period the Petitioner has not claimed any
relief for the alleged “Shared Household”. The only prayer made
in the DV complaint is to provide permanent accommodation or
to compensate her monetarily in order to purchase property for
herself.
20. It is the contention of the advocate Mr.Mehrotra that,
Section 2(s) of the DV Act requires that, the aggrieved person
should have lived in the “Shared Household”, at any stage while
in a domestic relationship either singly or along with
Respondent. In the present case, the Petitioner has never
resided alongwith Respondent No.2 at the given address, for
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
15/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
which the Petitioner is seeking directions for payment of
installments. The advocate for Respondent No.2 also relies on
the judgment of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Supra).
According to him, the facts of case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh
Devi (Supra) are totally different from that of the present
Petitioner. The facts that, case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh
Devi (Supra) cannot be compared to the facts of the present
case.
21. The Respondents places reliance on the following
judgments:
i. Manmohan Attavar Vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar6; ii. Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja7; iii. Pradeep Shriprakash Agrawal and Ors. Vs. Pratibha Pramod Agrawal8; iv. Smt.S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.9
It is his contention that, the subject property which is still
under construction and not yet in possession of Respondent,
does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
6 (2014) 16 SCC 711;
7 (2020) 11 SCC 770;
8 Cr.W.P.62 of 2021, dt.26.07.2021 (Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court)
9 2021(15) SCC 730
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
16/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
According to him, in order to attract Section 2(s), there
are five different components; (i) there has to be existence of
household; (ii) The aggrieved persons lives or has at any point
of time lived in a domestic relationship singly or with the
Respondent; (iii) the household may be owned or tenanted
jointly or individually by the aggrieved person or the
Respondent; (iv) either party has or had a right, title, interest
or equity in the premises; and (v) it may be part of joint family
property, of which Respondent is a member regardless of legal
title. The learned advocate has laid emphasis on the words,
“lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship”.
According to him, the words in the clause makes it abundantly
clear that, actual residence at some point of time, either by the
aggrieved party or by the Respondent is necessary. Since
neither of the parties have ever resided in the said premises, or
even the possession of the said proposed flat has not been
handed over to the Respondent, the premises does not qualify
the definition of “Shared Household”.
22. In support of his submissions, which requires party to
reside in the said shared household, or atleast should be in
possession of the shared household, the Respondent places
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
17/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
reliance on the judgment in the case of Manmohan Attavar Vs.
Neelam Manmohan Attavar (Supra) . He also places reliance in
the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of
actual co-habitation. According to him, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the words, “lives or at any stage has lived”,
must be given a purposeful interpretation. The residence of
aggrieved person in a household must have some permanency,
fleeting or casual residence is not sufficient.
23. I have heard the respective parties at length. Upon going
through the Application filed under Section 19(d) and (e) of the
DV Act, it can be noticed that the Petitioner has made following
prayers:
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an Order
directing the Respondent No.1 to pay the remaining
two installments for the Shared Household or such
other amount as is payable to the Developer, towards
the balance Consideration in respect of the Shared
Household i.e. Flat No.5704, admeasuring 1029 sq.
ft. carpet area, situated at Tower 3, Auris Serenity,
Guriya Pada, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 064;
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
18/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
(b) In the alternative to payer clause (a) above, this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the employer of
Respondent No.1 to pay the sum of the 7th and 8th
installment(s) , from the salary of the Respondent,
into the account of the Aplicant, so that the
Applicant can pay the same to the Developer;
(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an Order
directing the Respondent No.1 to refrain from
alienating and/or disposing off and/or encumbering
the Shared Household i.e. Flat No.5704,
admeasuring 1029 sq. ft. carpet area, situated at
Tower 3, Auris Serenity, Guriya Pada, Malad (West)
Mumbai – 400 064 in any manner whatsoever;”
24. This application is necessarily made under Section 19 of
the DV Act, which provides for protection by passing residence
order. The Petitioner is claiming protection by invoking Clauses
(d) and (e) of Section 19 of the DV Act, which read thus:
“19. Residence orders
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1)
of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied
that domestic violence has taken place, pass a
residence orderRajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
19/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or
disposing off the shared household or
encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing
his rights in the shared household except with
the leave of the Magistrate;”
25. Both the sub-sections contemplate that the aggrieved
person can seek protection from dispossession of their “Shared
Household”. In order to invoke Section 19 of the DV Act, the
necessary condition is that there has to be a “Shared
Household”. Only in case of “Shared Household”, the protection
orders with regard to residence are capable of being issued by
the competent Courts.
26. “Shared Household” is defined under Section 2(s) of the
DV Act. Section 2(s) of the DV Act reads as under:
“2(s) “shared household means a household where the
person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a
domestic relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household whether
owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved
person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted byRajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
20/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doceither of them in respect of which either the
aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly
or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and
includes such a household(s)shared household
means a household where the person aggrieved lives
or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship
either singly or along with the respondent and
includes such a household whether owned or
tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and
the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of
them in respect of which either the aggrieved
person or the respondent or both jointly or singly
have any right, title, interest or equity and includes
such a household which may belong to the joint
family of which the respondent is a member,
irrespective of whether the respondent or the
aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in
the shared household; which may belong to the joint
family of which the respondent is a member,
irrespective of whether the respondent or the
aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in
the shared household;”
27. Various contingencies are contained in the definition itself,
which is further interpreted by the High Courts as well as by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in their judicial pronouncements. Both
the parties have produced on record various judgments in
support of their own interpretation, during the course of
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
21/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
arguments. Among those judgments, the judgment of Prabha
Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Supra), has given widest
interpretation of the word, “Shared Household”. To interpret the
term “Shared Household”, various illustrations have been given
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
28. Section 17 of the DV Act provides that the aggrieved
person cannot be evicted or excluded from the, “Shared
Household” or any part thereof by the Respondent. Aggrieved
person cannot be evicted who is already sharing a household.
The aggrieved person has right to stay in the household though
she may not own it, irrespective of her right, title and interest,
she can continue to reside in the “Shared Household”.
29. Section 19 of the DV Act whereas provides protection to
the aggrieved person if Respondent is alienating, dispossessing
or disposing of the “Shared Household”, or restraining the
Respondent from renouncing his right in shared household.
Orders under Section 19 of the DV Act are to be passed by the
Magistrate on being satisfied about commission of the domestic
violence.
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
22/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
30. In an application under Section 17 of the DV Act, it is not
necessary to prove domestic violence. In the present case, the
Application is filed by the Petitioner under Section 19(d) and (e)
of the Act, which is reproduced hereinabove. While deciding the
Application, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 24 th
Court, Bandra, Mumbai, has partly allowed the Application of
the Petitioner, thereby restraining the Respondent from
alienating and dispossessing the Respondent from the “Shared
Household”. However, the prayer clauses (a) and (b) have been
rejected. It is against the order refusing to entertain the prayers
(a) and (b), the Respondent have preferred Criminal Appeal
before the Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai.
31. While rejecting the Appeal, the Sessions Court has held
that, the flat which is claimed to be a “Shared Household” is not
in a habitable condition, which is still under construction and
the title has not yet devolved upon the present Respondent, who
is a prospective purchaser. Therefore, the wife cannot compel
the husband to complete the transaction of sale agreement, by
paying remaining consideration by invoking provisions of DV
Act, including her right to live in a “Shared Household”.
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
23/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
32. For issuing an order under Section 19 of the DV Act, there
has to be a “Shared Household”, in existence. The definition of
the term, “Shared Household” has been given a wider
interpretation by various judicial pronouncement. After going
through them, the definition of, “Shared Household” interpreted
by giving various illustration which contemplates variety of
situations and circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Supra) , has held that,
even when a women in a domestic relationship is residing
elsewhere and she has never resided in the “Shared Household”
either with her in-laws or with her husband on account of
reasonable cause, she has right to reside in the “Shared
Household”. A woman who has resided in a domestic
relationship, has right to reside not only in the house of her
husband, if it is located in another place, but also in a shared
household which may be in a different location in which the
family or husband resides. Even, if the aggrieved person has
never resided in the shared household, her constructive right to
reside in the shared household has been recognized by this
judgment.
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
24/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.doc
33. In the present case, the flat which is booked by the
Respondent is claimed to be the “Shared Household” by the
Petitioner. The right of the aggrieved person is essentially based
on the right to live in a household which is in existence. The
protection provided under Section 19 of DV Act is a protection,
from being evicted from the “Shared Household”, which
aggrieved person has a right to reside under the DV Act. Even
the right of aggrieved person to restrain the Respondent from
alienating the shared household, is intended to protect, from
being evicted from the “Shared Household”, occupied by the
aggrieved person. The provision is intended to secure shelter to
an aggrieved person, who has proved domestic violence, from
being rendered without shelter. Both the provisions i.e. Sub –
Section (d) and (e) of Section 19 of the DV Act ensures,
continued residence of the aggrieved person in the premises,
that is in existence and occupied by a person aggrieved.
34. In the present case, the possession of the alleged “Shared
Household”, is not yet handed over, the installments are still not
fully paid. In the circumstances, it would be stretching it too far
to direct the Respondent to pay the remaining installments or
direct the employer to deduct the installments from his salary
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
25/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.docand pay it to the Bank. None of the parties are occupying the
said premises, they have never ever resided in that flat/house,
nor do they intend to live. More so, on the background of the
fact that the Respondent has already initiated divorce
proceedings against the Petitioner in 2020 itself.
35. 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 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 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
Rajeshri Aher::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::
26/26 904 cri. wp424 of 2025.docnot fall within the purview of “Shared Household”, as defined
under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. 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.
36. There is no case made out by the Petitioner for causing
interference in the orders passed by both the Court by invoking
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
37. In view of the above observations, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed.
38. Rule is discharged.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2025 15:40:22 :::