The Bombay High Court has ruled that preventing a woman from residing in a shared household constitutes domestic violence under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court clarified that the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Act exists irrespective of any ownership, title, or beneficial interest in the property.

The matter arose when the non-applicant no. 1, the wife of the applicant’s brother, was denied entry and residence in the shared household by the applicant.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke was hearing a criminal revision application challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had previously granted the sister-in-law and her son the right to reside in the property. The applicant opposed the claim, contending that the respondent had not lived with her husband in the house since 2004, that the Domestic Violence Act came into force only in 2005, and that a deed of divorce was allegedly executed between her and her late husband.

The Court rejected these arguments, observing that the definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) and “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) encompasses women who have lived in a domestic relationship at any point in time. Justice Joshi-Phalke emphasized that the phrase “has lived together at any point of time” explicitly includes past cohabitation:

“The intention of including the said words has its own meaning… Any other interpretation would defeat the object of the provisions. Therefore, so long as the domestic relationship exists and the party has lived together at any point in time, an application under the Act is maintainable and can provide necessary relief.”

The Court further clarified that the right to reside in a shared household is not limited to current or actual residence. A woman in a domestic relationship may enforce her right to reside in the property even if she is not physically living there at present.

In the present case, the Court noted that Mohini had lived in the house with her husband until 2004. After her husband’s death in 2008, her attempts to regain residence were resisted by the applicant. The Court held that denying her access constituted domestic violence in the form of “economic abuse,” as it deprived her of a shelter she was legally entitled to:

“…economic abuse constitutes domestic violence if the respondent prohibits or restricts the aggrieved person from accessing resources or facilities she is entitled to under the domestic relationship, including the shared household. In this case, non-applicant No.1 was deprived of the shared household, and therefore the applicant committed domestic violence against her, given her prior domestic relationship in 2004.”

The Court also ruled that the alleged divorce deed was not legally valid, noting that dissolution of marriage requires a decree from a competent civil court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

While upholding the relief for Mohini and her son, the Court modified the order to specify that they were entitled to reside on the first floor of the property in accordance with the Will executed by her mother-in-law.

Accordingly, the revision petition was partly allowed, and the appellate court’s order was modified to reflect this arrangement.

Case Title: Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan v. Mohini Mukesh Chauhan & Anr. [Criminal Revision Application No. 240 of 2022]