top of page
Search

🏠UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY CAN'T BE DEEMED TO BE "SHARED HOUSEHOLD" UNDER DV ACT🌈

🏠 Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra: Defining "Shared Household" Under DV Act - A Landmark Judgment Analysis 📚


Published on July 8, 2025 | Bombay High Court | Domestic Violence Law


🔍 Case Overview


The Bombay High Court's recent judgment in Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 424 of 2025) has brought clarity to a crucial question in domestic violence law: Can an under-construction property be considered a "Shared Household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 


Court: Bombay High Court  

Judge: Justice Manjusha Deshpande  

Decided on: July 4, 2025  

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:26973


## 📋 Quick Facts


- Petitioner: Srinwati Mukherji (45 years, temporarily residing in Mumbai)

- Respondent: Prateek Thukral (husband) and family members

- Marriage Date: May 11, 2013

- Property in Question: Flat No. 5704, Auris Serenity, Malad West, Mumbai

- Property Value: ₹3,52,00,000 with ₹3,24,00,000 HDFC loan


## 🏛️ Background of the Case


### The Marriage and Initial Years 💑

Srinwati Mukherji, originally from Kolkata, married Prateek Thukral in 2013. After marriage, the couple moved to Maharashtra and lived in a rented apartment in Thane. However, their relationship deteriorated when Prateek, working as a Senior Software Development Engineer at Amazon Luna, moved to Seattle, USA in 2019.


### The Property Purchase 🏢

In February 2020, as a gesture of commitment to rebuild their marriage, Prateek executed a registered "Agreement for Sale" for a flat in Auris Serenity, Malad West, Mumbai. The agreement was made in both their names, with only two installments remaining to be paid at the time of the legal dispute.


### The Domestic Violence Complaint 📝

Fed up with Prateek's behavior, including threats to stop paying rent and asking her to return to Kolkata, Srinwati filed a domestic violence complaint in May 2022. The court granted interim maintenance of ₹45,000 per month, but Prateek stopped paying rent from June 2022, forcing Srinwati to sell her car and vacate the rented premises.


## ⚖️ Legal Issues Raised


### Primary Question 🤔

Can an under-construction property where neither party has resided be considered a "Shared Household" under Section 2(s) of the DV Act?


### Petitioner's Arguments 👩‍⚖️

1. Domestic Relationship Exists: Admittedly, there was a domestic relationship between the parties

2. Joint Ownership: The Agreement for Sale was executed in both names

3. Right to Reside: She had every right to reside in the property as co-owner

4. Broad Interpretation: The definition of "Shared Household" should be interpreted broadly

5. Constructive Residence: Relying on Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, she argued that actual residence is not mandatory


### Respondent's Counter-Arguments 🧑‍⚖️

1. No Actual Residence: Neither party had ever resided in the property

2. No Possession: The property was still under construction with no possession given

3. Strict Interpretation: Section 2(s) requires actual residence at some point

4. Different Facts: The Prabha Tyagi case had different factual circumstances


## 📖 Key Legal Provisions


### Section 2(s) of the DV Act - Definition of "Shared Household"

```

"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 whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them..."

```


### Section 19(d) and (e) - Residence Orders

The petitioner sought relief under these provisions, which allow courts to:

- (d) Restrain respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household

- (e) Restrain respondent from renouncing rights in the shared household


## 🏛️ Court's Analysis and Reasoning


### The Five Components Test 🔍

The court identified five essential components for Section 2(s):

1. Existence of household

2. Aggrieved person lives or has lived in domestic relationship

3. Household owned/tenanted jointly or individually

4. Right, title, interest or equity in premises

5. May be joint family property


### Critical Interpretation 📊

Justice Manjusha Deshpande emphasized that the words "lives or at any stage has lived" require actual residence at some point. The court noted:


> "The residence of aggrieved person in a household must have some permanency, fleeting or casual residence is not sufficient."


### The Prabha Tyagi Landmark: Broad Interpretation of "Shared Household" 🌟


The Supreme Court's decision in Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi (2022) marked a watershed moment in domestic violence law by providing an expansive interpretation of "Shared Household." The apex court held that:


🔓 Revolutionary Principles from Prabha Tyagi:

- Constructive Residence Doctrine: A woman's right to reside includes not just actual residence but also constructive residence in the shared household

- Multiple Household Recognition: Women have rights in multiple shared households - husband's house, in-laws' house, and any other family residence

- Reasonable Cause Exception: Even if a woman has never actually resided in a household due to reasonable circumstances, she retains the right to reside there

- Broad Protective Scope: The right cannot be restricted to actual physical presence - it encompasses the fundamental right to shelter within the domestic relationship


📋 Key Quote from Prabha Tyagi:

> "The right to reside in a shared household cannot be restricted to actual residence. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a 'Shared Household'."


### Distinguishing Prabha Tyagi in Present Case 🔄

However, the Bombay High Court carefully distinguished the present case from Prabha Tyagi:


🏠 Prabha Tyagi Scenario:

- Existing, habitable household where woman had established rights

- Physical structures were complete and available for occupation

- Family members were residing in the disputed property

- Woman was prevented from accessing an existing living space


🏗️ Srinwati Mukherji Scenario:

- Under-construction property with no possession given

- No existing household structure for anyone to occupy

- Neither party had ever resided in the disputed flat

- Seeking to create rather than protect residential rights


The court emphasized that while Prabha Tyagi expanded the concept of shared household for existing dwellings, it did not extend to non-existent or incomplete properties.


## 🎯 The Court's Final Verdict


### Judgment Summary ⚖️

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:


1. No Shared Household Exists: The under-construction property without possession cannot be considered a "Shared Household"

2. No Actual Residence: Neither party had ever resided in the property

3. Legislative Intent: The DV Act aims to protect existing residential rights, not create new ones

4. Scope Limitation: Directing payment of installments would exceed the scope of Section 19(d) and (e)


### Key Reasoning 💭

> "The right of the aggrieved person is essentially based on the right to live in a household which is in existence. The protection provided under Section 19 of DV Act is a protection from being evicted from the 'Shared Household', which aggrieved person has a right to reside under the DV Act."


### Court's Balancing Act: Prabha Tyagi vs Reality ⚖️

The court acknowledged the transformative impact of Prabha Tyagi while setting practical boundaries:


✅ What Prabha Tyagi Achieved:

- Expanded Protection: Extended beyond mere physical occupation to constructive rights

- Multiple Residences: Recognized women's rights in various family properties

- Prevented Exploitation: Stopped husbands from using technicalities to deny housing rights

- Social Justice: Aligned law with ground realities of Indian family structures


⚠️ Limitations Recognized in Srinwati Mukherji:

- Existing vs Future: Prabha Tyagi protected existing households, not future constructions

- Completion Requirement: Some level of habitability or completion is necessary

- Possession Principle: Neither party can claim rights in non-possessed properties

- Practical Boundaries: Courts cannot force completion of commercial transactions through DV Act


## 📚 Legal Precedents Cited


### Supporting Petitioner:

- Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi (2022) 8 SCC 90

- Vandana vs T. Srikanth 2007 (5) CTC 679

- Aditya Anand Varma vs State of Maharashtra (2022) Bom CR (Cri) 48


### Supporting Respondent:

- Manmohan Attavar vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar (2014) 16 SCC 711

- Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja (2020) 11 SCC 770

- Smt. S. Vanitha vs Deputy Commissioner 2021(15) SCC 730


## 🎯 Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners


### 1. Impact of Prabha Tyagi Revolution 🌟

- Game-Changer: The Supreme Court's broad interpretation has fundamentally altered DV Act jurisprudence

- Constructive Rights: Women now have constructive residence rights even without actual occupation

- Multiple Properties: Rights extend to all family properties where domestic relationship exists

- Protective Umbrella: Provides broader protection against housing deprivation


### 2. Boundaries Set by Srinwati Mukherji ⚖️

- Existing vs Future: Prabha Tyagi protects existing households; cannot create rights in non-existent properties

- Completion Threshold: Some level of habitability or completion is essential

- Possession Requirement: Neither party can claim rights without any form of possession


### 3. Actual Residence Requirement ✅

- Courts require evidence of actual residence at some point in time

- Constructive residence has limits and cannot extend to non-existent households


### 4. Property Under Construction 🏗️

- Under-construction properties without possession don't qualify as "Shared Household"

- Booking agreements alone are insufficient


### 5. Scope of DV Act 📏

- The Act protects existing residential rights

- It doesn't create new rights or compel completion of property transactions


### 6. Practical Implications 💡

- Women should establish actual residence before claiming protection

- Alternative relief under maintenance provisions may be more appropriate


## 🔮 Future Implications


### For Legal Practice 👩‍💼

This judgment clarifies that:

- Property lawyers must advise clients about DV Act implications during property purchases

- Family law practitioners should focus on establishing actual residence for stronger claims

- Women's rights advocates need to explore alternative legal remedies for similar situations


### For Legislation 📜

The judgment highlights potential gaps in the DV Act regarding:

- Protection for women in transitional housing situations

- Rights in jointly purchased but unoccupied properties

- Need for broader protective mechanisms


## 💰 Financial Implications


### Case-Specific Impact 💸

- Property Value: ₹3,52,00,000 at stake

- Pending Installments: Two installments worth ₹52,32,000 each

- Maintenance Arrears: ₹6,85,000 claimed vs ₹4,00,000 paid


### Broader Economic Impact 📈

- Affects property investment decisions by married couples

- Influences lending practices for joint property purchases

- Creates uncertainty in real estate transactions involving domestic relationships


## 🌟 Expert Analysis


### Strengths of the Judgment 💪

1. Clear Legal Reasoning: Provides precise interpretation of statutory provisions

2. Practical Approach: Recognizes limits of judicial intervention in property transactions

3. Balanced View: Considers both women's rights and legal boundaries


### Potential Criticisms 🤔

1. Restrictive Interpretation: May limit protection for women in vulnerable situations

2. Formalistic Approach: Prioritizes legal technicalities over substantive justice

3. Gap in Protection: Leaves women without remedy in certain circumstances


## 🔍 Comparative Analysis


### Similar Cases Globally 🌍

- UK: Matrimonial property rights provide broader protection

- Australia: Family law considers future interests in property

- Canada: Constructive trust principles offer alternative remedies


### Indian Context 🇮🇳

- Aligns with conservative interpretation of DV Act

- Reflects judicial reluctance to expand statutory definitions

- Emphasizes actual residence over constructive rights


## 📊 Statistical Context


### DV Act Applications 📈

- Annual Cases: Approximately 1.2 lakh DV cases filed annually in India

- Success Rate: 60-70% of maintenance applications succeed

- Property Disputes: 25% of DV cases involve property-related claims


### Gender Impact 👥

- Women's Homelessness: 40% of domestic violence victims face housing insecurity

- Property Rights: Only 13% of Indian women own property independently

- Legal Awareness: 30% of women are unaware of DV Act provisions


## 🎓 Educational Value


### For Law Students 📚

This case teaches:

- Statutory Interpretation: How courts interpret legislative definitions

- Precedent Analysis: Distinguishing and applying case law

- Social Justice: Balancing legal technicalities with social needs


### For Legal Professionals 👨‍⚖️

Key learning points:

- Client Counseling: Advising on realistic expectations

- Case Strategy: Building stronger factual foundations

- Alternative Remedies: Exploring different legal avenues


## 🚀 Conclusion


The Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra judgment represents a significant development in domestic violence jurisprudence that must be understood in the context of the revolutionary Prabha Tyagi decision. While the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Prabha Tyagi dramatically expanded the concept of "Shared Household" and provided unprecedented protection to women through constructive residence rights, the present case clarifies the practical boundaries of this progressive interpretation.


### The Prabha Tyagi Legacy 🌟

The Prabha Tyagi judgment transformed DV Act jurisprudence by:

- Breaking Physical Barriers: Establishing that women's housing rights transcend mere physical occupation

- Creating Multiple Sanctuaries: Recognizing rights in various family properties

- Preventing Technical Denials: Stopping husbands from using legal technicalities to deny housing rights

- Advancing Social Justice: Aligning law with the realities of Indian family structures


### Srinwati Mukherji: Setting Practical Limits ⚖️

However, the Bombay High Court's decision provides necessary practical boundaries to prevent the misuse of Prabha Tyagi's broad principles:


✅ Confirms Prabha Tyagi Principles for:

- Existing, habitable households

- Properties where family members reside

- Situations involving actual or constructive occupation

- Protection from wrongful eviction


❌ Sets Limits for:

- Under-construction properties without possession

- Future or speculative housing arrangements

- Compelling completion of commercial transactions

- Creating new rights rather than protecting existing ones


Key Verdict Points 🎯

✅ Under-construction properties cannot be "Shared Household"  

✅ Actual residence is required at some point  

✅ ***Prabha Tyagi* protects existing rights, doesn't create future ones**  

✅ Courts cannot compel completion of property transactions  


The Balanced Approach 🔄

This judgment achieves a crucial balance between:

- Progressive Women's Rights (as established in Prabha Tyagi)

- Practical Legal Boundaries (as clarified in Srinwati Mukherji)

- Commercial Reality (protecting property market integrity)

- Social Justice (ensuring meaningful protection without overreach)


Looking Forward 🔮

The combined impact of Prabha Tyagi and Srinwati Mukherji will likely influence:

- Judicial Interpretation: Courts will apply Prabha Tyagi's broad principles within Srinwati Mukherji's practical framework

- Legislative Reform: Potential amendments to address gaps in protection for transitional housing situations

- Legal Strategy: Practitioners will need to establish actual residence foundations while leveraging Prabha Tyagi's constructive rights doctrine

- Property Planning: Married couples will need to consider DV Act implications in property investments


The case underscores that while ***Prabha Tyagi* opened doors** for women's housing rights, ***Srinwati Mukherji* provides the blueprint** for their practical application. Together, they create a comprehensive framework that protects women's genuine housing rights while preventing potential misuse of the legal system.


This evolution in jurisprudence reflects the maturation of domestic violence law in India - from basic protection to sophisticated rights recognition, and now to practical implementation guidelines that serve both justice and legal certainty.


---


For more legal insights and case analyses, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media. This analysis is for educational purposes and should not be considered legal advice.



Comments

bottom of page