IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 424 OF 2025 Srinwati Mukherji Petitioner Age – 45 years;

Temporarily residing at :

3C – 1407 Mhada Complex, Prem Nagar, S.V. Road, Goregaon, Mumbai – 400 104.

Versus

1) State of Maharashtra; Respondents

2) Prateek Thukral Age – 55 years;

Residing at : Mapsko Casa Bella Tower, N-2, Apartment 601 Sector 8, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 004;

3) Anil Thukral Age – 41 years;

4) Ranjana Thukral, Age – 39 years;

Both 3 and 4 Residing at J8, 128, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110 027 and

1/80, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110 027.

…..

Mr.Archit Jaykar a/w. Ms.Bhoomi Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs.Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyar, APP for Respondent – State.

Mr.Raghavendra S. Mehrotra a/w. Mr.Irfan Shaikh, Mr.Maddhat Shaikh and Mohini Tekale i/b. M/s.Lawkhart Legal, Advocate and Legal Consultants, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.

…..

CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RESERVED ON : 18^th JUNE, 2025.

RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER PRONOUNCED ON : 4^th JULY, 2025.

AHER Date:

2025.07.05

11:02:51 +0530 JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.

3. The Petitioner by this Petition is seeking directions to the Respondent No.2–husband to pay remaining two installments for the “Shared Household”, or such other amount as is payable to the developer towards the balance consideration in respect of a flat admeasuring 1029 square feet carpet area situated at Malad West, Mumbai. This prayer is made claiming to be under Section 2(s) i.e. “Shared Household”, as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, “the DV Act”, for brevity).

4. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2024, thereby confirming the order dated 03.06.2024, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24^th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “ACMM”, for brevity) in CC No.182/DV/2022. Both the Courts have refused to entertain the prayer made by the Petitioner on the ground that, such prayer cannot be granted since the flat i.e. the “Shared Household” is only booked and not in possession of either of the parties, therefore it cannot be considered as a “Shared Household”, as defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.

5. The case of the Petitioner in the nutshell is that, the Petitioner who was residing at Kolkata married to Respondent No.2 on 11.05.2013. After her marriage, she shifted in Maharashtra and started residing at Thane alongwith Respondent No.2 in a rented premises. According to her, she was subjected to physical and emotional domestic violence by Respondent No.2. In the year 2019, Respondent No.2 shifted to Seattle in United States of America (USA). He was working as a Senior Software Development Engineer at Amazon Luna.

6. During his stay in the USA, Respondent No.2 had indulged in adulterous relationship with other woman. In February 2020, Respondent No.2 returned to Mumbai and the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 attempted to reconcile their relationship. She agreed to give a chance to their marriage, on the assurance given by Respondent No.2 that he would permanently shift to Mumbai and would settle down and they would start their own family. As a gesture of commitment, the Respondent No.2 had executed an registered “Agreement for Sale” of a Flat No.5704 admeasuring 1029 sq. ft. carpet area, situated at Tower 3, Auris Serenity Guriya Pada, Malad West, Mumbai. The total consideration of the flat, was Rs.3,52,00,000/-. A loan of Rs.3,24,00,000/- was availed by Respondent No.2 from HDFC Bank, Malad West Branch, Mumbai.

7. After that Respondent No.2 returned to USA in March 2020. In 2021, Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were residing in a rented flat in Silver Oak Apartment, Lourdes Colony, Malad West, Mu