Husband Can’t Be Asked To Pay Instalments For Under-Construction Flat Under DV Act, Not ‘Shared Household’: Bombay High Court
A flat beneath building, although registered collectively within the identify of the spouses, can’t be termed a ‘shared family’ beneath the Safety of Girls from Home Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband can’t be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay Excessive Court docket just lately.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande famous that the flat in query was nonetheless beneath building and that the couple has not resided in the identical but.
“Within the current case, the possession of the alleged ‘Shared Family’, will not be but handed over, the instalments are nonetheless not totally paid. Within the circumstances, it could be stretching it too far to direct the husband to pay the remaining instalments or direct the employer to deduct the instalments from his wage and pay it to the Financial institution. Not one of the events are occupying the mentioned premises, they’ve by no means ever resided in that flat/home, nor do they intend to stay. Extra so, on the background of the truth that the husband has already initiated divorce proceedings towards the spouse, in 2020 itself,” the excessive courtroom mentioned in its July 4 order.
The PWDV Act, the decide mentioned, is a social welfare laws meant to supply safety to victims of home violence and abuse occurring throughout the household. The provisions be sure that the victims are supplied financially, in addition to safety from being ousted from their “Shared Family”, the place the sufferer is residing, sufferer may even search alternate lodging, or course to pay lease of the alternate lodging.
“The victims proper of residence is roofed beneath Part 19 of the DV Act, however the type of reduction claimed by the Petitioner spouse, sadly doesn’t match beneath any of the reliefs supplied beneath Part 19 of the DV Act. The prayer made by the spouse wouldn’t be maintainable for the reason that property/flat, remains to be beneath building and never in possession of both of the events, due to this fact, it could not fall throughout the purview of ‘Shared Family’, as outlined beneath Part 2(s) of the DV Act. Therefore, I don’t discover any perversity within the findings recorded vide order dated October 19, 2024 handed by the Classes Decide,” Justice Deshpande held.
The bench was listening to a plea filed by a spouse difficult the orders of a Justice of the Peace and in addition a Classes courtroom, each refusing to direct the husband to pay the instalments in the direction of an under-construction flat in suburban Malad, which the spouse claimed to be a ‘shared family.’
The husband argued that the flat in query can’t be termed a ‘shared family’ because the couple didn’t reside within the mentioned flat for a single day.
The courtroom accepted the competition of the husband and due to this fact dismissed the spouse’s plea.
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 424 of 2025)
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Archit Jaykar and Bhoomi Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent 2: Advocates Raghavendra Mehrotra, Irfan Shaikh, Maddhat Shaikh and Mohini Tekale instructed by Lawkhart Authorized, Advocate and Authorized Consultants
Counsel for Respondent State: Further Public Prosecutor Dhanlakshmi Krishnaiyar
