The Husband Liability DV Act is a critical topic in today’s legal discussions about domestic violence and accountability.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an under-construction property—one not yet occupied by either spouse—cannot be considered a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
This decision clarifies a key boundary in domestic violence claims: financial obligations under the DV Act apply only when the property is habitable and in possession.
Legal Background of the Husband Liability DV Act
In Srinwati Mukherji v State of Maharashtra & Ors, a 45-year-old woman sought a direction against her husband to pay the remaining installments on a residential flat in Malad, Mumbai, which they had jointly booked in 2020 during a brief reconciliation phase.
- 👫 Marriage: Since 2013, with intermittent cohabitation
- 🌏 Husband later moved to the USA
- 🛡️ Interim maintenance order passed in 2023
- 📉 Husband allegedly defaulted on rent and maintenance
- 🏗️ Flat not yet ready for possession; listed under both names
Implications of the Husband Liability DV Act on Family Law
Justice Manjusha Deshpande examined whether an unready flat could fall within the definition of “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
“The property/flat, still under construction and not in possession of either party, would not fall within the purview of ‘Shared Household’.”
Key points from the judgment:
- Protection under the DV Act applies only to existing, occupiable premises
- The petitioner cannot seek relief under the Act for payment obligations on a property not yet habitable
- Financial claims tied to under-construction property must be routed through civil remedies, not domestic violence proceedings
📂 Timeline & Legal Journey
- Trial Court: Granted interim relief restraining the husband from creating third-party rights—but denied installment payment relief
- Sessions Court: Upheld the lower court’s decision
- High Court: Dismissed the appeal; ruled payment obligation does not arise under DV Act in such cases
👥 Arguments Presented
| Petitioner-Wife’s Claims | Husband’s Counter |
|---|---|
| Flat was jointly booked; payments mostly done | Flat never occupied and not mentioned in DV complaint |
| Right to reside applies even during construction | Not ready, not habitable, no shared possession |
| Maintenance default calls for expanded relief | Civil liabilities outside DV Act should be pursued |
📝 Vakilify Insight
This ruling offers clarity in cases where financial disputes blur into domestic violence claims. While the law rightly protects women from dispossession, it falls short of enforcing property payments where there is no shared possession. For spouses navigating separation and shared assets, this distinction is both subtle and crucial.
🔗 Related Article: Understanding DV Act’s Scope
👉 Criminal Procedure Best Practices: An Internal Guide
👉 The Unseen Impact: How Legal Precedents Shape Society
| Learn more about the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the official IndiaCode site.
