Bombay High Court: “Right To Reside In Shared Household” Not Restricted To Actual Residence; Woman In Domestic Relationship Can Enforce It

The Bombay High Court held that “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.

The Nagpur Bench held thus in a Criminal Revision Application filed against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which allowed a widow and her son to reside in shared-household.

A Single Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke observed, “If a woman in a domestic relationship seeks to enforce her right to reside in a shared household, 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.”

The Bench clarified that the right of residence of a woman in a domestic relationship is guaranteed under Sub section (1) of Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) 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.

Advocate Deepanshu Verma appeared for the Applicant while Advocate Sadanand M. Nafde appeared for the Non-Applicants.

Factual Background

The Non-Applicant was a legally wedded wife of the deceased who was the brother of the Applicant. In 2008, his brother had died and since then the Non-Applicants (widow and her son) were trying to pursue request for permitting them to reside in the house. However, allegedly, the Applicant did not allow them to stay in the said house. The mother-in-law of the Non-Applicant i.e., the Applicant’s mother had executed a Will in 2004 and bequeathed the ground floor to the Applicant and first floor to the deceased. Thereafter, she died in 2007. It was contended that the Non-Applicant after marriage resided with her husband and other family members till March 2004. Due to family dispute, she and her husband left shared household and went to Pune. They again returned to Nagpur and started residing in rented premises.

In 2007, the deceased started constructing first floor of the shared household as per the Will. However, he died in 2008 and the said construction was incomplete. It was alleged that thereafter, the Applicant did not allow the Non-Applicants to enter in the shared household due to which they were constrained to stay in rented premises. As there was no response to the notices issued by them, they approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC). The Applicant objected by contending that the Non-Applicant and deceased were not having any conjugal relationship and as the DV Act was enacted in 2005, it would not apply to this case. The JMFC rejected the Application and this was challenged before the ASJ, who allowed the Appeal. Being aggrieved, the Applicant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “… 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.”

The Court said that the enactment of the DV Act is a piece of social legislation wherein right of a woman to reside in the shared household is identified and it is applicable to every woman irrespective of her religious 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”, it added.

The Court further observed that the dissolution of marriage will be effected only by decision of the competent Civil Court and not by executing any Divorce Deed.

“… 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 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”, it also noted.

Conclusion

However, considering that the Non-Applicant was deprived from using the shared household property and the Applicant committing the domestic violence who was in the year 2004 in a domestic relationship with her, the Court was of the view that the Judgment and Order passed by ASJ calls for 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”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Revision Application and modified the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:9202)

Click here to read/download the Judgment