Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a wife, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging orders of the Sessions Court and Metropolitan Magistrate in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were married on 11 May 2013. After marriage, she shifted from Kolkata to Thane and later to Malad West, Mumbai, where the couple resided in rented premises. She alleged physical and emotional domestic violence. In 2019, respondent No.2 moved to Seattle, USA, where he worked as a Senior Software Development Engineer at Amazon Luna. During his stay, he allegedly had an adulterous relationship. In February 2020, he returned to Mumbai and executed a registered Agreement for Sale for Flat No.5704, admeasuring 1029 sq. ft. carpet area, in Tower 3, Auris Serenity, Guriya Pada, Malad West. The total consideration was Rs.3,52,00,000, and a loan of Rs.3,24,00,000 was availed from HDFC Bank. Respondent No.2 returned to the USA in March 2020. In 2021, the parties lived in a rented flat in Silver Oak Apartment, Lourdes Colony, Malad West. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 threatened to stop paying rent and electricity and asked her to return to Kolkata. In May 2022, she filed a domestic violence complaint. On 2 February 2023, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed respondent No.2 to pay Rs.45,000 per month as interim maintenance. He stopped paying rent from June 2022, forcing the petitioner to sell her car and vacate the rented premises in February 2024. A distress warrant was issued on 6 July 2023. In January 2024, the seventh installment of Rs.52,32,000 became due to the developer. Respondent No.2 sent an email to the developer alleging that the petitioner had cheated on him and asked the developer to sell the flat. The petitioner sought directions from the Magistrate for respondent No.2 to pay the remaining two installments or for his employer to pay the balance consideration. The ACMM by order dated 3 June 2024 refused the prayer for payment of balance consideration but granted a restraint order against creation of third party interest in the shared household. The Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 19 October 2024. Both courts held that a flat only booked and not in possession could not be considered a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 18 June 2025, pronouncing it on 4 July 2025. The provided text does not include the final operative order of the High Court, but the issues raised concern the definition and scope of shared household and the availability of directions for payment of balance consideration under the DV Act.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Definition and Scope - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(s) - The petitioner sought directions against the respondent husband to pay the balance consideration for a jointly booked flat at Malad West, claiming it as a shared household under Section 2(s). The lower courts had refused the prayer on the ground that a flat only booked and not in possession could not be a shared household; the High Court was seized of the correctness of that view and the interim order restraining creation of third party interest (Paras 3-4, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a flat that is merely booked and not in possession of either party can be considered a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; whether the Magistrate can direct the respondent husband or his employer to pay balance consideration or EMIs to the developer for such flat.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Law Points
- Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 defines shared household
- a flat only booked and not in possession may not qualify as shared household
- interim relief under DV Act can restrain creation of third party interest in disputed flat
- maintenance orders and distress warrants are enforcement mechanisms under DV Act.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 123
Writ Petition No. 424 of 2025
Archit Jaykar, Bhoomi Upadhyay, Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyar, Raghavendra S. Mehrotra, Irfan Shaikh, Madhat Shaikh, Mohini Tekale
State of Maharashtra, Prateek Thukral, Anil Thukral, Ranjana Thukral
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under criminal appellate jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court challenging orders of the Sessions Court and Metropolitan Magistrate in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought directions to Respondent No.2 husband to pay the remaining two installments or balance consideration to the developer for a 1029 sq. ft. flat at Malad West, Mumbai, claimed as shared household under Section 2(s) DV Act, alternatively to direct the employer to pay such consideration.
Filing Reason
Lower courts refused the prayer on the ground that the flat was only booked and not in possession of either party, hence could not be a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
Previous Decisions
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai passed order dated 03.06.2024 in CC No.182/DV/2022 refusing prayer clauses (a) and (b) but granting clause (c) restraining Respondent No.2 from creating third party interest in the shared household; Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai dismissed Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2024 by order dated 19.10.2024.
Issues
Whether a flat that is merely booked and not in possession of either party can be considered a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether the Magistrate can direct the respondent husband or his employer to pay the balance consideration or EMIs to the developer for such a flat in DV proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that despite the flat being jointly booked and not yet possessed, it constituted a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and sought payment of balance consideration from Respondent No.2 or his employer.
Respondent No.2, through email to developer, alleged that the petitioner had cheated on him and stated he was not interested in purchasing the flat, asking the developer to sell it to someone else.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned in the provided text; the court was considering the scope of shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act but the final reasoning is not available.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
Prayer clause (c) came to be granted, thereby restraining Respondent No.2 from creating any third party interest in the shared household.
Respondent No.2 unilaterally and arbitrarily asked the developer to sell the flat to someone else.
Procedural History
Marriage between petitioner and Respondent No.2 solemnized on 11.05.2013; after marriage petitioner shifted to Thane with Respondent No.2; in 2019 Respondent No.2 shifted to Seattle, USA; in February 2020 he returned to Mumbai and executed registered Agreement for Sale of flat in Malad West; in March 2020 returned to USA; in 2021 parties resided in rented flat in Malad West; in May 2022 petitioner filed DV complaint; on 02.02.2023 ACMM directed Respondent No.2 to pay Rs.45,000 per month interim maintenance; on 06.07.2023 distress warrant issued; in January 2024 seventh installment of Rs.52,32,000 became due; in February 2024 petitioner vacated rented premises; on 03.06.2024 ACMM passed order refusing prayers (a) and (b) and granting prayer (c); on 19.10.2024 Sessions Court dismissed appeal; petitioner filed Writ Petition No.424 of 2025; matter reserved on 18.06.2025 and pronounced on 04.07.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 2(s)
