Under-construction flat not a ‘shared household' under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC
Justice Manjusha Deshpande passed the order on Friday while dismissing a petition filed by a 45-year-old woman from Goregaon. She had sought directions to her estranged husband, a 55-year-old software engineer working in the US, to pay the remaining instalments of a ₹3.52-crore flat in Malad West booked in their joint names.
The court noted that since the possession of the flat had not been handed over and the payments were still incomplete, the property could not be considered a 'shared household' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The couple married in May 2013 and initially lived in a rented flat in Thane. In 2019, the man moved to the US for work. According to the woman, during his time abroad, he had an extra-marital affair. Despite strained relations, she said she gave the marriage another chance when he returned to India in February 2020 and promised to settle down with her in Mumbai.
As a gesture of commitment, the husband booked the 1,029-sq-ft under-construction apartment in Malad West. However, the woman alleged that after moving into another rented flat in Malad in 2021, the man resumed harassing her, prompting her to file a domestic violence complaint before the Borivali magistrate court.
In the course of those proceedings, she sought an order directing him to pay the balance consideration for the Malad flat, claiming it was necessary to protect her right of residence under section 19 of the DV Act.
The magistrate court rejected her plea on June 3, 2024. The order was upheld by the Dindoshi sessions court on October 19, 2024. She then moved the high court in appeal.
Dismissing her plea, justice Deshpande observed that although the DV Act protects a woman's right to reside in the shared household, the definition requires actual possession or residence. 'The flat is under construction and not in possession of either party. Therefore, it would not qualify as a shared household,' the court ruled.
Directing the husband or his employer to pay pending instalments would be 'stretching it too far', the court added, concluding that such a direction was beyond the scope of the DV Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Rajasthan: MDMA worth over ₹3 crore seized in Jaisalmer, 2 held under anti-drug crackdown
Two persons were arrested here and synthetic drug MDMA valued at ₹3.5 crore in the international market has been seized from them, police said on Friday. Police said the two intended to sell the MDMA in smaller quantities within Jaisalmer town. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) A joint operation was carried out by a district special team (DST) along with local police led by Superintendent of Police Abhishek Shivhare. The team intercepted an SUV allegedly being used to transport 336.4 grams of MDMA by the accused -- Prakash (28) and Prem Prakash (28) -- residents of Phalodi district. Police said the two intended to sell the MDMA in smaller quantities within Jaisalmer town. Shivhare said the crackdown was part of a statewide anti-narcotics drive. The suspects are being interrogated to uncover further links in the supply and distribution chain. According to police, Prakash has a previous case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act registered against him at Mandore police station. Further investigation is underway, they added.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Minister's family running dance bar under mother's name gives up licence
Mumbai: Following allegations that the minister of state for home, Yogesh Kadam, was running a dance bar with a licence in his mother's name, the Kadam family reportedly surrendered the orchestra licence of Savali bar in Kandivli on Friday. Shiv Sena (UBT) MLC Anil Parab criticised the licence surrender, stating it proves his allegations were right and that a dance bar with immoral activities was being operated by the Kadam family for years. Demanding Kadam's resignation, Parab argued that just because a thief returns stolen goods, he cannot be let off. "Yogesh Kadam must resign on moral grounds, but it seems the CM is helpless and can't take action against him. The law was broken by the MoS home, who is supposed to be the protector of the law," Parab said. Kadam did not respond to calls and texts from TOI on Friday. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Parab had met CM Fadnavis Tuesday to submit evidence that Kadam was allegedly running a dance bar with a licence in his mother's name. He also presented evidence that sand extracted from the Jagbudi river, intended for houses for poor farmers, was allegedly being diverted to a dental college linked to Kadam's family in Ratnagiri. Parab on Friday demanded action against Kadam, warning that if the CM does not take action, it will be assumed that he too is shielding dance bars. "The MoS home, who is the protector of the law, is trampling the law. It's a pity that the CM can't take action and is helpless. It's not too late. I have already given all the evidence to the CM. So far, there is no action on the licence holder. The police are under political pressure. So first, Yogesh Kadam must resign; otherwise, this will show the CM is helpless. The CM must show some spine," Parab said. "There is a Savali bar, its licence is in the name of Yogesh Kadam's mother. There were bar girls dancing there, obscene dances, and money was being thrown. All this information is in the police records and FIR. I got this information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, it cannot be false. Accordingly, when the raid was conducted, action was taken against 22 bar dancers, 22 customers, and four employees in the bar. They say that they do not run the dance bar; it is given to someone else to run. I am telling you the provisions of the law for your information: if a servant or someone authorised by the owner commits a misdemeanour, the responsibility lies with the owner. Police have all video footage of a dance bar being run there," Parab said.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
IT's benami unit attaches 12 acres of tribal land near Bandhavgarh tiger reserve in MP
Bhopal: The Income Tax department 's Benami Prohibition Unit in Bhopal has provisionally attached nearly 12 acres of tribal land located in the buffer zone of Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve in Umaria district of Madhya Pradesh. The land, valued at approximately Rs 90 lakh, was allegedly acquired using unaccounted cash by a wealthy businessman from Nagod tehsil in Satna district, in the name of his tribal employee— a benami transaction intended to bypass laws protecting tribal land. The attached properties, situated in village Tala and Village Mahaman of Tehsil Manpur, Umaria district, were purchased between 2023 and 2024 in the name of Raja, a Scheduled Tribe who worked as a driver for the accused businessman for over 20 years. All three plots are within the buffer zone of Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, a significant ecotourism area attracting visitors globally. Officials stated that the lands were acquired with the clear intent of commercial development, including resorts, restaurants, and homestays. Two of the plots were already under active construction for homestays, while a third strategic plot is located just 1.3 km from the Tala Gate, the main entry point to the national park, adjacent to Nature Heritage Resort, a well-known property in the region. Officials said that Raja, the registered landowner, has extremely limited means. His family of seven resides in a one-room house with a tin roof on govt land, and he lacks the financial capacity to purchase land valued in lakhs of rupees. Investigations revealed that the actual buyer, the businessman from Satna, used cash payments to acquire the land. Some payments were made directly to the tribal sellers, while other amounts were deposited into Raja's bank account and subsequently transferred to the sellers—a common method to disguise benami ownership. In notified scheduled tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, tribal land cannot be transferred to non-tribals without specific approval from the district collector, according to Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. This regulation safeguards tribal land rights in areas with significant tribal populations. However, in this case, the businessman circumvented the restriction by registering the land in the name of his tribal employee. Officials stated that this was done deliberately to exploit loopholes and develop commercial properties in a restricted zone. Based on the findings, the IT Department's Benami Unit in Bhopal initiated proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (PBPT) Act, 1988. A show-cause notice under Section 24(1) was issued to both the benamidar, Raja, and the beneficial owner, the businessman. The three land parcels, totaling 11.878 acres, have been provisionally attached under Section 24(3) of the PBPT Act, preventing their sale, transfer, or alteration during the stipulated four-month notice period. Officials highlighted that this case reflects a growing pattern of non-tribals using tribal proxies to acquire valuable land near protected zones for commercial tourism projects. Madhya Pradesh, which has the highest tribal population in India, is home to eight tiger reserves, many located in tribal-dominated regions. "These benami setups not only violate tribal land protection laws but also threaten the ecological balance of sensitive areas," said a senior official involved in the case. More such cases are being monitored, particularly around ecotourism hotspots like Bandhavgarh, Kanha, and Pench.
