Can a Wife Enforce EMI Payments on a Flat She Never Lived In?

The Safety of Ladies from Home Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) was enacted to safeguard the rights of girls in home relationships from abuse, together with emotional, bodily, financial, and verbal violence. A big characteristic of the Act is the popularity of a lady’s proper to reside within the “shared family.” However what if the “shared family” is barely a potential house, nonetheless below building, and neither celebration has ever lived there?

Factual Background

Srinwati Mukherji married Prateek Thukral in 2013 and shifted from Kolkata to Mumbai. Initially, the couple resided in rented lodging. Following an estranged relationship and allegations of home violence, together with emotional abuse and abandonment, Srinwati filed a criticism below the DV Act in Might 2022.

Amid makes an attempt at reconciliation, the husband booked a flat in Malad, Mumbai, in each their names. A registered Settlement for Sale was executed in 2020 for a flat price ₹3.52 crores. A mortgage of ₹3.24 crores was taken from HDFC Financial institution, however possession of the flat was by no means taken by both celebration. Subsequently, the husband moved again to the USA and defaulted on each EMI funds and the interim upkeep orders handed in 2023.

Difficulty

• Can a spouse declare enforcement of EMI funds from her husband below the DV Act for a flat collectively owned however by no means inhabited by both partner?

Petitioner’s Argument

Srinwati sought route below Sections 19(d) and 19(e) of the DV Act for:

• Cost of the remaining EMIs for the under-construction flat,
• Restraint on the husband from alienating the flat, and
• Alternatively, directing his employer to launch EMI quantities from his wage.

She argued that:

• The flat was meant as their future residence and, subsequently, certified as a “shared family” below Part 2(s) of the DV Act.
• Regardless of not bodily residing within the flat, she had constructive rights owing to her joint possession.
• Supreme Court docket rulings similar to Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) emphasised a broad interpretation of “shared family,” overlaying even constructive or meant residence.
• The Court docket ought to apply a purposive interpretation and recognise her residence rights even in a property not but occupied.

Respondents’ Counter-Argument

The husband and co-respondents countered that:

• The flat was below building and never occupied by both celebration.
• There was no previous cohabitation within the stated premises—a vital requirement for a property to qualify as a “shared family”.
• As per Part 2(s)the definition requires that the aggrieved individual should have “lived” within the family at any level through the home relationship.
• Judicial precedents, similar to Manmohan Attavar v. Neelam Attavar (2014) and Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha ahuja (2020)spotlight the need of precise residence or intention of residence, which was absent on this case.
• The petition amounted to implementing a contractual obligation (i.e., EMI funds) below the guise of a DV declare, which was past the DV Act’s scope.

Judicial Reasoning and Choice

Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decrease courts’ reasoning. Key observations included:

• Part 19(d) and (e) present safety towards alienation or renouncement of a “shared family,” however solely when the aggrieved girl has a legally recognised proper to reside in it.
• For a property to qualify as a shared family, both the girl should at the moment dwell there or should have lived there through the home relationship.
• The flat in query was nonetheless below building, unoccupied, and had by no means been inhabited—thus, it failed the edge set by Part 2(s).
• Citing Manmohan Attavar v. Neelam Manmohan Attavar and Satish Chander Ahujathe Court docket reiterated that residence should have some extent of permanence and can’t be merely hypothetical.
• Though the Supreme Court docket in Prabha Tyagi recognised constructive residence, it didn’t obliterate the requirement of a tangible reference to the premises.

The Court docket emphasised that directing a husband to proceed with high-value property funds for a flat below building, which neither celebration resided in, fell exterior the scheme of the DV Act.

Key Highlights of the choice

Justice Manjusha Deshpande noticed

“The prayer made by the Petitioner wouldn’t be maintainable because the property/flat, continues to be below building and never in possession of both of the events, subsequently, it might not fall throughout the purview of “Shared Family”, as outlined below Part 2(s) of the DV Act.

Therefore, I don’t discover any perversity within the findings recorded vide order dated 19.10.2024 handed by the Classes Decide at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, in Legal Attraction No.150 of 2024, thereby confirming the order dated 03.06.2024, handed by the Extra Chief Metropolitan Justice of the Peace, twenty fourth Court docket, Borivali, Mumbai, in CC No.182/DV/2022. The prayer made by the Petitioner isn’t able to being granted contemplating the scope of Part 19(d) and (e) of the D.V. Act.”

Key Takeaways

1. Shared Family Should Be Occupied or Meant for Quick Occupation: A flat merely booked and never possessed or used for residence can not mechanically grow to be a “shared family.”
2. Constructive Residence Should Be Justified by Circumstances: Even broad interpretations by the Supreme Court docket (e.g., Prabha Tyagi) don’t prolong to fully unoccupied, non-habitable future residences.
3. DV Act Is Not a Substitute for Contractual Enforcement: The Act is remedial and protecting in nature, not a mechanism to implement actual property obligations like EMIs or sale agreements.
4. Proper to Residence ≠ Proper to Possession: The DV Act confers a proper to reside, even with out possession or title. Nevertheless, this proper should relate to an precise or constructive residence through the home relationship.

Conclusion

In Srinwati mukherji v. State of maharashtrathe Bombay Excessive Court docket rightly drew a boundary between matrimonial property disputes and statutory home violence aid. Whereas the DV Act is a strong device to guard victims of abuse, it isn’t a mechanism to implement monetary commitments on future belongings by no means been occupied or lived in.