Recently, the Bombay High Court upheld the right of a woman to reside in a shared household, even after the death of her husband, holding that her exclusion from the property amounts to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that the right to reside in a shared household extends to women in past or present domestic relationships, irrespective of actual ownership or ongoing cohabitation.
Brief Facts:
The matter arose when the applicant challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, which allowed the non-applicants, a widow and her son, to reside in a shared household. The non-applicant No.1 was married to the applicant’s brother, who passed away, leaving behind a partially constructed property. Following her husband’s death, she sought to return to the shared household but was denied access by the applicant, forcing her and her son to live in rented accommodation. A prior application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was initially rejected by the JMFC, leading to an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The applicant contended that the non-applicant No.1 had ceased to reside with her husband since 2004 and that there was no subsisting domestic relationship. She argued that the divorce between the non-applicant and her late husband in 2007 further invalidated any claim. The applicant also submitted that the Domestic Violence Act, enacted in 2005, should not apply retroactively and that the non-applicants never cohabited in the property after the specified period.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, while interpreting Sections 2, 3, 12, and 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, clarified that an “aggrieved person” is any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship and subjected to domestic violence. Importantly, a “domestic relationship” is not limited to current cohabitation, it includes past relationships where the parties lived together in a shared household. Similarly, a “shared household” covers property owned or rented by either party, jointly or individually, and even joint family property, regardless of actual residence or ownership.
The Court emphasized that domestic violence encompasses economic abuse, including restricting access to resources or facilities a woman is entitled to, such as the shared household. In this case, the Court noted that the non-applicant had lived in the shared household with her husband and that her exclusion after his death amounted to domestic violence.
Further, the Court observed, “The expression 'right to reside in a shared household' is not restricted to only actual residence, as irrespective of actual residence, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside in the shared household.” The Court also dismissed the applicant’s argument regarding a divorce deed, noting that a valid judicial determination under the Hindu Marriage Act is required and that past cohabitation is sufficient for a claim under the Act.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court partly allowed the revision application, upholding the Additional Sessions Judge’s order. The Court modified the order to direct that the non-applicant No.1 and her son are entitled to reside in the first floor of the shared household, as per the Will executed by her mother-in-law, instead of the ground floor. All other directions in the original order remain intact. The revision application was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Ashish vs. Mohini & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 240 of 2022
Coram: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Deepanshu Verma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sadanand M.Nafde
