Ashish S/O Chandrakant Chouhan vs Mohini Wd/O Mukesh Chouhan And Anohter
2025 Latest Caselaw 5651 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ashish S/O Chandrakant Chouhan vs Mohini Wd/O Mukesh Chouhan And Anohter on 16 September, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:9202




              Judgment

                                                            476 revn240.22



                                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2022

              Ashish s/o Chandrakant
              Chauhan, aged about - 56 years,
              occupation - business, r/o 465,
              Anand Nagar, Sakkardara Chowk,
              Tahsil and district Nagpur.     ..... Applicant.

                                  :: V E R S U S ::

              1. Smt.Mohini wd/o Mukesh
              Chauhan, aged about - 43 years,
              occupation - Nil, r/o plot No.9,
              New Kailash Nagar, Manewada,
              tahsil and district Nagpur.

              2. Abhinav s/o Mukesh Chauhan,
              aged - 17 (minor) through his
              mother Smt.Mohini wd/o
              Mukesh Chauhan, occupation - student,
              r/o plot No.9, New Kailash Nagar,
              Manewada, tahsil and district
              Nagpur.                           ..... Non-applicants.

              Shri Deepanshu Verma, Counsel for the Applicant.
              Shri Sadanand M.Nafde, Counsel for the Non-applicants.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 21/08/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 16/09/2025

                                                                   .....2/-
 Judgment

                                               476 revn240.22



                               2

JUDGMENT

1. By this revision, the applicant has challenged

judgment and order dated 17.8.2022 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-12, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal

No.162/2017 whereby allowed the non-applicants to

reside in shared-household (ground floor of suit property)

as described in the application with costs of Rs.20,000/-

to be paid to the applicant.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the

revision, are as under:

The non-applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife

of Mukesh Chauhan, who is brother of the applicant and

applicant No.2 is son of non-applicant No.1 and Mukesh.

On 23.5.2008, Mukesh died and since then the non-

applicants are trying to pursue request for permitting

them to reside in the house at plot No.465. However, as

.....3/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

per the allegations, the applicant has not allowed them to

stay in the house. The mother-in-law of non-applicant

No.1 and the mother of the applicant executed Will on

29.9.2004 and bequeathed the ground floor to the

applicant and first floor to deceased Mukesh. The mother

of the applicant also died on 5.2.2007. As per the

contention of the non-applicant No.1, after married, she

resumed co-habitation in the said house and resided with

her husband and other family members, till March 2004.

Due to the family dispute, the non-applicant No.1 and her

husband left shared household in March 2004 and went

to stay at Pune. They again returned to Nagpur and

started residing in a rented premises. In the year 2007,

the deceased Mukesh started constructing first floor of the

shared household as per the Will with the consent of his

mother Sadhana. However, Mukesh died in January

2008. At the relevant time, the said construction was

.....4/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

incomplete. The applicant, thereafter, did not allow the

non-applicants to enter in the shared household and she

was constrained to stay in a rented premises along with

her son on payment of Rs.6000/- per month. The

applicant has also not responded to the notices issued by

the non-applicants. Therefore, non-applicant No.1 was

constrained to approach to the JMFC seeking relief under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (the said Act).

3. The applicant resisted the application on the

ground that the non-applicant No.1 never shared and

resided along with her husband in the said house. The

divorce decree was executed on 5.7.2007 and non-

applicant No.1 and deceased Mukesh were not having any

conjugal relationship, upto death of Mukesh. The non-

applicants were residing separately. It is the applicant

.....5/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

who has constructed structure on the first floor. The non-

applicants never resided with the applicant in the house

property in the year 2004. It is further contended that as

the said Act was enacted on 14.9.2005, it would not apply

in the present case.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri Deepanshu Verma

for the applicant and learned counsel Shri Sadanand

M.Nafde for the non-applicants.

5. After hearing both the sides and perusing the

documents on record, learned JMFC, Nagpur rejected the

said application by order dated 7.10.2014. Being

aggrieved with the same, the non-applicants preferred an

appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.162/2017 before

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. After

considering pleading and the submissions, the Appellate

Court held that definition of "aggrieved persons" is

.....6/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

provided under Section 2(a) of the said Act. The

definition of "shared household" is also given and in view

of the provisions of shared household, the non-applicants

are entitled to stay in the shared household and allowed

the appeal.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same,

the present revision is filed on the ground that the non-

applicants are not at all the aggrieved persons and the

non-applicant No.1 never resided with her husband in the

shared household. The provisions of the said Act are not

applicable as the said Act is enacted in 2005.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the

said contentions and submitted that the order passed by

the Appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

He placed reliance on the decision in the case of S.R.Batra

.....7/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

and vs. Taruna Batra (Smt), reported in (2007)3 SCC

169.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-

applicants supported the judgment and order of the

Appellate Court. He placed reliance on the decision in the

case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi, reported in

(2023)8 SCC 90.

9. It is submitted that the non-applicant No.1 is

married with Mukesh, who is elder brother of the

applicant and they resided in the house property, upto

March 2004. It is also undisputed that after March 2004,

the non-applicant No.1 and her deceased husband went

to Pune and after returning from Pune, they resided in a

rented premises. At the time of death of deceased Mukeh,

the non-applicants were residing in the rented premises.

It is further alleged that after the death of Mukesh, the

.....8/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

non-applicants requested the applicants to allow them to

stay in the shared household property, but the said

request was not considered and they were deprived from

staying in the shared household property. It is further

contended that the mother-in-law of the Non-applicant

No.1 and the mother of the applicant executed Will and

bequeathed the right in favour of her two sons namely the

applicant and deceased Mukesh, which is undisputed fact.

As per contentions of the non-applicant No.1, she filed an

application under Section 12 of the said Act seeking

various relief alleging that she is subjected for domestic

violence by the applicant and deprived her from her right

to stay in the shared household property.

10. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is

necessary to refer some relevant provisions.

.....9/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

11. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines "aggrieved

person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a

domestic relationship with the respondent and who

alleged to have been subjected to any act of domestic

violence by the respondent.....

12. Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship"

means a relationship between two persons who live or

have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared

household, when they are related by consanguinity,

marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of

marriage, adoption or are family members living together

as a joint family.....

13. Section 2(s) defines "shared household" means

a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any

stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or

along with the respondent and includes such a household

.....10/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the

aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or

tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the

aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or

singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes

such a household which may belong to the joint family of

which the respondent is a member, irrespective of

whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any

right, title or interest in the shared household

14. Section 3(iv) defines "economic abuse" which

includes ---

(a)deprivation of all or any economic or

financial resources to which the aggrieved

person in entitled under any law or custom

whether payable under an order of a Court or

otherwise or which the aggrieved person

.....11/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

requires out of necessity including, but not

limited to, household necessities for the

aggrieved person and her children, if any,

stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned

by the aggrieved person, payment of rental

related to the shared household and

maintenance;

(b) disposal of household effects, any

alienation of assets whether movable or

immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds

and the like or other property in which the

aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled

to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or

which may be reasonably required by the

aggrieved person or her children or her

.....12/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

stridhan or any other property jointly or

separately held by the aggrieved person; and

(c)prohibition or restriction to continued

access to resources or facilities which the

aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by

virtue of the domestic relationship including

access to the shared household.

Explanation II. For the purpose of determining

whether any act, omission, commission or

conduct of the respondent constitutes domestic

violence under this section, the overall facts

and circumstances of the case shall be taken

into consideration.

15. Thus, this clause defines expression "domestic

violence. Any act, omission or commission or conduct of

the respondent shall amount to domestic violence in

.....13/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

certain circumstances. It includes causing physical abuse,

sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse or economic

abuse, which are also explained in the said clause.

16. In determining, whether any act, omission,

commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes

"domestic violence", the overall facts and circumstances of

the case shall be a guiding factor.

17. Section 12 of the said Act, talks about

procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs, which is

reproduced as under:

"12. Application to Magistrate. (1) An

aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any

other person on behalf of the aggrieved person

may present an application to the Magistrate

seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

.....14/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

Provided that before passing any order on such

application, the Magistrate shall take into

consideration any domestic incident report

received by him from the Protection Officer or

the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1)

may include a relief for issuance of an order

for payment of compensation or damages

without prejudice to the right of such person to

institute a suit for compensation or damages

for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic

violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount

as compensation or damages has been passed

by any Court in favour of the aggrieved person,

the amount, if any, paid or payable in

.....15/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate

under this Act shall be set off against the

amount payable under such decree and the

decree shall, notwithstanding anything

contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(5 of 1908), or any other law for the time

being in force, be executable for the balance

amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1)

shall be in such form and contain such

particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as

possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of

hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond

three days from the date of receipt of the

application by the Court.

.....16/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose

of every application made under sub-section

(1) within a period of sixty days from the date

of its first hearing.

18. Section 17 of the said deals with "right to

reside in a shared household, which states that (1)

notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for

the time being in force, every woman in a domestic

relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared

household, whether or not she has any right, title or

beneficial interest in the same and (2) the aggrieved

person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared

household or any part of it by the respondent save in

accordance with the procedure established by law.

.....17/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

19. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

applicant that in view of the definition of the "domestic

relationship, the non-applicant No.1 never resided with

her husband after 2004 and, therefore, the said domestic

relationship was not in existence between them. It is

further submitted that in view of definition of the "shared

household," where the person aggrieved lives or at any

stages lives in domestic relationship either singly or along

with the respondent, includes such household whether

owned or tended either jointly by the accused persons

and the respondent or owned or tended by either of them

in respect of which either the aggrieved persons or the

respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title,

interest, or enquiry and includes such household which

may belong to joint family of which respondent is a

members, irrespective or whether the respondent or the

.....18/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

aggrieved person has right, title or interest in a shared

household.

20. The non-applicant No.1 has left the house

along with her husband in the year 2004 itself. There was

no domestic relationship in existence within meaning of

the above referred definitions. Therefore, her application

is not maintainable. The said submission itself is not

tenable, because the wording of "aggrieved person" as

laid down in Section 2(a) of the said Act clearly provided

that any woman, who is, or has been in a domestic

relationship with the respondent.

21. The definition of "domestic relationship" also

means relationship between two persons who live or have

at any point of time live together in a shared household.

The definition of shared household also means where the

person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a

.....19/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

domestic relationship. Therefore, none of definitions

contemplate that on the date of filing of such application

for the reliefs under the said Act, the parties should be

actually residing or living together. The wording itself

"has lived together at any point of time", covers even the

past cohabitation or past togetherness between the

aggrieved person and the respondent. The intention of

the inclusion of the said words, has its own meaning.

Otherwise, these words would not have appeared in the

definitions. Giving any other interpretation to these

words, is not the object of the said provisions. Therefore,

till the relationship exists and the party at any point of

time had lived together, the application or proceeding

under the said Act can survive and is very much

maintainable so as to grant necessary relief.

.....20/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

22. This aspect is also considered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi

and it has been held that 'domestic relationship' means a

relationship between two persons who live or have, at any

point of time, lived together in a shared household, when

they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a

relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are

family members living together as a joint family. The

expression 'domestic relationship' is a comprehensive one.

Hence, every woman in a domestic relationship in

whatever manner the said relationship may be founded as

stated above has a right to reside in a shared household,

whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial

interest in the same. Thus, a daughter, sister, wife, mother,

grand-mother or great grand-mother, daughter-in-law,

mother-in-law or any woman having a relationship in the

nature of marriage, an adopted daughter or any member

.....21/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

of joint family has the right to reside in a shared

household.

It has been further observed that the

expression 'shared household' is defined in the context of

a household where the person aggrieved lives or has lived

in a domestic relationship either singly or along with

Respondent, in the context of Sub-section (1) of Section

17, the said expression cannot be restricted only to a

household where a person aggrieved resides or at any

stage, resided in a domestic relationship. In other words,

a woman in a domestic relationship who is not aggrieved,

in the sense that who has not been subjected to an act of

domestic violence by the Respondent, has a right to reside

in a shared household. Thus, a mother, daughter, sister,

wife, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law or such other

categories of women in a domestic relationship have the

.....22/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

right to reside in a shared household de hors a right, title

or beneficial interest in the same.

23. Thus, the right of residence of the aforesaid

categories of women and such other categories of women

in a domestic relationship is guaranteed Under Sub-

section (1) of Section 17 and she cannot be evicted,

excluded or thrown out from such a household even in

the absence of there being any form of domestic violence.

24. Thus, the expression 'right to reside in a shared

household' has to be given an expansive interpretation, in

respect of the aforesaid categories of women including a

mother-in-law of a daughter-in-law and other categories

of women referred to above who have the right to reside

in a shared household.

25. If a woman in a domestic relationship seeks to

enforce her right to reside in a shared household,

.....23/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

irrespective of whether she has resided therein at all or

not, then the said right can be enforced Under Sub-

section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. If her right to

reside in a shared household is resisted or restrained by

the Respondent(s) then she becomes an aggrieved person

and she cannot be evicted, if she has already been living

in the shared household or excluded from the same or any

part of it if she is not actually residing therein. In short, ,

the expression 'right to reside in the 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.

26. Admittedly, the enactment of the said Act is

piece of social legislation wherein right of a woman to

reside in the shared household is identified. It is

applicable to every woman irrespective of her religious

.....24/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

affiliation or social background. The enactment is for

more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under

the Constitution of India and in order to protect woman

victim of domestic violence occurring in domestic

relationship.

27. Coming to the facts of the present case, the

non-applicant No.1 has claimed her right to stay in the

shared household as she resided in the said shared

household along with her husband upto March 2004.

28. This Court in the case of Smt.Bharati Naik vs.

Shri Ravi Ramnath Halarnkar and anr, reported in

2010(3) Bom Criminal Cases 871 wherein the words "has

been or have been interpreted." It is categorically held

that the words "has been and have been" are used for the

purpose of showing the past relationship or experience

between the concerned parties. The said words therefore

.....25/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

have been used purposefully as the said Act has been

enacted to protect a woman from domestic violence and,

therefore, there cannot be any fetter which can come in

the way by interpreting the provisions in a manner to

mean that unless the domestic relationship continues on

the date of the application, the provisions of the said Act

cannot be invoked. It was further held that To interpret

the said provisions so as to mean that only subsisting

domestic relationship are covered would result in turning

the provisions of the said Act Otiose.

As such, the submissions made by learned

counsel for the applicant on this aspect are not tenable

and hence the same are required to be rejected.

29. The applicant has further come with another

defence that there was dissolution of marriage between

the non-applicant No.1 and her husband on 25.7.2007 by

.....26/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

way of divorce deed. This contention is not substantiated

by any document. The non-applicant No.1 has already

denied the said fact. In view of 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, the dissolution of marriage will be effected only by

decision of the competent civil court and not by executing

any such divorce deed. Therefore, the said contention is

also not tenable.

30. Admittedly, the evidence on record shows that

the applicant and the non-applicants shared the

household as well as they lived in domestic relationship.

After the death of husband of non-applicant No.1, the

non-applicant No.1 attempted to stay in the said

household. The present applicant has also not allowed

her to reside in a shared household. The mother-in-law of

non-applicant No.1 and the mother of the applicant

executed Will on 29.9.2004 and bequeathed the ground

.....27/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

floor to the applicant and first floor to deceased Mukesh.

Therefore, the non-applicants have claimed that the

applicant's refusal to allow the non-applicant No.1 in the

shared household amounts to domestic violence. The

definition of domestic violence given under Section 3 of

the said Act, especially clause (a), specifically states that

for the purpose of the said Act, any act, omission or

commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute

domestic violence in case it harms or injures or endangers

health, safety, life, limb well-being, whether mental or

physical, of the aggrieved person tends to do so and

includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and

emotional abuse and economic abuse.

Thus, the clause defines the expression

"domestic violence". Any act or omission or commission

or conduct of the respondent shall amount to domestic

.....28/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

violence in certain circumstances. It includes all abuses

including economic abuse.

31. Section 3(v) of the said Act defines "economic

abuse" which includes deprivation of all or any economic

or financial resources to which the aggrieved person in

entitled under any law or custom whether payable under

an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved

person requires out of necessity including, but not limited

to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her

children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately

owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related

to the shared household and maintenance.

32. Thus, it provides that economic abuse would

be domestic violence if the respondent prohibits or

restricts the applicant to continue access or resources or

facilities which aggrieved person is entitled to use or

.....29/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including the

access to the shared household. Therefore, in view of the

rights given under the said Act, the provisions of the

shared household and domestic relationship between the

applicant and the non-applicants may not be there.

However, considering the non-applicant No.1 was

deprived from using the shared household property and,

therefore, the applicant has committed the domestic

violence who was in the year 2004 in a domestic

relationship with her. Therefore, the judgment and order

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge calls no

interference. Only modification required is that instead of

ground floor, the non-applicant No.1 is entitled to reside

in the shared household on the first floor in view of recital

of the Will executed by her mother-in-law.

.....30/-

Judgment

476 revn240.22

33. In this view of the matter, I proceed to pass

following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

(2) The judgment and order dated 17.8.2022 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-12, Nagpur in Criminal

Appeal No.162/2017 is modified to the extent that the

non-applicant No.1 along with her son is entitled to reside

in the shared household on the first floor instead of on

the ground floor as described in the application.

(3) Rest of the order is maintained.

Revision stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 17/09/2025 16:36:02