Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6731
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE URMILA SACHIN JOSHI- PHALKE
ASHISH S/O CHANDRAKANT CHOUHAN – Appellant
Versus
MOHINI WD/O MUKESH CHOUHAN AND ANOHTER – Respondent
REVN/240/2022
Decided On : 16-09-2025
The right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is upheld irrespective of current cohabitation, emphasizing the significance of prior domestic relationships.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(s), 3(iv), 12, and 17 - Right to reside in a shared household - Non-applicant claimed her right to reside in shared household post husband’s death, despite previous disputes - Definitions of domestic relationship and shared household emphasize prior cohabitation’s recognition, irrespective of current conditions - Court emphasized that right to reside in shared household is not contingent on current cohabitation, upholding the applicant's entitlement after being subjected to deprivation - Judgment modified reinstating right to live on the first floor in shared household. (Paras 22, 24, 30, 32)
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 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 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 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 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 Appel
