Bombay High Court: In the present revision application, the applicant challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the non-applicants were allowed to reside in the shared household with costs of Rs 20,000 to be paid to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the non-applicant never shared or resided in the house with her husband. A Single Judge Bench of Urmila Joshi Phalke, J., while partly allowing the application to the extent that the non-applicant, along with her son, was entitled to reside in the shared household, held that the words “has lived together at any point of time” covered past cohabitation, and any other interpretation would defeat the object of the provisions. The Court emphasised that, as long as the relationship existed and the parties had lived together at any point, the application was maintainable.
Background:
The case arose when the non-applicant, the legally wedded wife of the deceased, along with her minor son, sought permission to reside in the house. The deceased was the brother of the applicant, who was currently occupying the property. After the death of the deceased on 23-05-2008, the non-applicant and her son attempted to pursue their request to live in the house but were allegedly denied entry. The mother of both the deceased and the applicant had executed a Will on 29-09-2004, through which she bequeathed the ground floor to the applicant and the first floor to the deceased. The mother later died on 05-02-2007.
According to the non-applicant, after marriage, she resumed cohabitation in the house and lived there with her husband and other family members until March 2004. Due to a family dispute, she and her husband left the shared household and moved to Pune. They later returned to Nagpur and began living in rented premises. In 2007, the deceased began constructing the first floor of the house as per the Will, with the consent of his mother. However, he died in January 2008 before the construction was completed. After his death, the non-applicant and her son were not allowed to enter the house and had to continue living in rented premises, paying Rs 6000 per month.
Despite sending notices, there was no response from the applicant. As a result, the non-applicant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC’) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act’), seeking relief. The applicant resisted the application, stating that the non-applicant never shared or resided in the house with her husband. He alleged that a divorce decree was executed between his brother and the non-applicant on 05-07-2007 and claimed that there was no conjugal relationship between them up to the deceased’s death. It was also argued that the non-applicant and her son were residing separately and that the applicant had constructed the structure on the first floor.
It was further contended that the non-applicant and her son never resided with the applicant in the house in 2004, and since the Act was enacted on 14-09-2005, it would not apply to the present case. However, the JMFC, Nagpur rejected the non-applicant’s application on 07-10-2014. Aggrieved by this, she filed a Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Section 2(a) of the Act and the definition of “shared household,” the non-applicant was entitled to reside in the property.
Consequently, the applicant filed a revision, arguing that the non-applicant was not an “aggrieved person,” had never lived with her husband in the shared household, and that the Act, enacted in 2005, did not apply.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined the clause defining “domestic violence” and observed that any act, omission, or conduct of the respondent could amount to domestic violence, including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic abuse. The Court further examined Section 17 of the Act, stating that every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household, regardless of ownership or interest, and cannot be evicted except by due process of law. The Court emphasised that a “domestic relationship” includes persons who lived or had lived together in a shared household, and actual residence at the time of filing is not required.
The Court highlighted that the wording “has lived together at any point of time” covered even past cohabitation or past togetherness between the aggrieved person and the respondent, and that giving any other interpretation to these words was not the object of the said provisions. Therefore, as long as the relationship existed and the parties had lived together at any point, the Court noted that the application was maintainable.
Referring to Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90 the Court reiterated that every woman in a domestic relationship, however founded, had a right to reside in a shared household, whether or not she had any right, title or beneficial interest. The Court observed that a daughter, sister, wife, mother, grand-mother or great grandmother, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law or any woman having a relationship in the nature of marriage, an adopted daughter or any member of joint family had the right to reside in a shared household.
The Court stated that “shared household” meant a household where the aggrieved person lived or had lived in a domestic relationship, either singly or with the respondent, and even a woman not subjected to domestic violence had a right to reside. The Court held that the “right to reside” was not restricted to actual residence and could be enforced irrespective of religious affiliation or social background, as the Act was a piece of social legislation for protecting constitutional rights and victims of domestic violence.
The Court observed that the contention regarding dissolution of marriage on 25-07-2007 by divorce deed was not substantiated by any document. The Court noted that, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the 1955, dissolution could only be affected by a competent civil court, not by executing a divorce deed. Therefore, the contention was not tenable.
The Court emphasised that economic abuse would amount to domestic violence if the respondent prohibited or restricted the applicant from accessing resources or facilities which the aggrieved person was entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship, including access to the shared household. The Court noted that, in view of the rights given under the Act, even if the shared household and domestic relationship between the applicant and non-applicant were not present at the time, the non-applicant was deprived of using the shared household property. Therefore, the applicant committed domestic violence, having been in a domestic relationship with her in the year 2004.
The Court held that the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge required no interference. The only modification directed was that, instead of the ground floor, the non-applicant was entitled to reside in the shared household on the first floor, in view of the recital of the Will executed by her mother-in-law.
The Court, therefore, partly allowed the application and modified the order dated 17-08-2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal to the extent that the non-applicant, along with her son, was entitled to reside in the shared household on the first floor instead of the ground floor as described in the application, while the rest of the order was maintained.
[Ashish v. Mohini, Criminal Revision Application No. 240 of 2022, decided on 16-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Deepanshu Verma
For the Non-Applicant: Sadanand M. Nafde
Thank you for sharing this detailed article about the Bombay High Court decision. The clarification that the right to reside in a shared household includes past cohabitation is very important for protecting women from domestic violence and economic deprivation.