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 ruled that a property still under construction and not in possession of either spouse does not qualify as a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Therefore, a husband cannot be forced to pay installments for such a jointly booked flat, the Court held.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande made this observation while hearing a woman’s plea seeking directions to her estranged husband to pay pending installments. The Court concluded that the property lacked the necessary criteria to attract protection under the Act.
The Court noted that the statutory protection against dispossession under the Domestic Violence Act applies only to properties that physically exist and are fit 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 petitioner sought a court order directing her husband to pay the pending dues for a residential flat in Mumbai’s Malad, which they had jointly booked in 2020 as part of a reconciliation attempt.
The couple, married in 2013, had lived together intermittently until the husband relocated to the USA for work. After allegations of domestic violence, an interim maintenance order was issued in 2023.
However, the husband allegedly stopped paying rent and failed to comply with the maintenance order, leading to additional legal action.
When the developer demanded the next installment for the Malad flat, the woman moved the High Court, asserting it as a shared household and requesting that her husband be directed to make the payments for the under-construction property.
Previously, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had partially granted her plea by restraining the husband from creating third-party rights over the flat but declined to order him to pay the installments. This decision was later affirmed by the Sessions Court.
Challenging the trial court’s decision, the woman contended that the flat was jointly booked in their names, with most installments already paid, and claimed a right to reside there despite it being under construction.
The husband opposed her plea, arguing that neither of them had ever occupied the flat, it was not ready for possession, and it had not been referenced in the original domestic violence complaint.
While noting that the law permits a broad interpretation of “shared household” to protect aggrieved individuals, the Court held that such protection does not extend to a property that is not yet fit for habitation. As a result, it upheld the lower courts’ rulings and dismissed the petition.