The Bombay High Court has held that a flat under construction, though jointly registered in the names of both spouses, does not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). As such, the husband cannot be directed to pay the remaining instalments for the property.

Justice Manjusha Deshpande, in her order, observed that the couple had never taken possession of the flat, had not resided there, and did not intend to do so—especially since the husband had initiated divorce proceedings in 2020.

"In the absence of possession and with no history of residence, it would be stretching the provisions too far to treat the flat as a shared household and direct payment of instalments by the husband," the Court noted.

Emphasizing that the PWDV Act is a social welfare legislation designed to protect victims from domestic violence and to secure their right of residence under Section 19, the Court found that the relief sought by the petitioner-wife fell outside the scope of the Act. Since the flat was neither in possession nor occupied by either party, it could not be treated as a 'shared household' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the wife challenging concurrent orders by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, which had both declined to direct the husband to pay the home loan instalments for the under-construction property in suburban Malad. The husband contended that the flat had never been occupied by the couple, a submission the Court ultimately accepted.

Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 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 Legal
Counsel for State: Additional Public Prosecutor Dhanlakshmi Krishnaiyar