Past Cohabitation Sufficient to Claim 'Right to Reside' Under DV Act; Ongoing Relationship Not Required: Bombay High Court - 2025-09-20

Bombay High Court Upholds Widow's Right to Reside in Shared Household, Clarifies Scope of 'Domestic Relationship'

Nagpur: The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling, affirming that a woman's right to reside in a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is not contingent upon her living there at the time of filing the application. Justice Urmila Sachin Joshi-Phalke held that past cohabitation is sufficient to establish a "domestic relationship," and preventing a woman from accessing such a property constitutes "economic abuse."

The court was hearing a revision application filed by Ashish Chouhan challenging an Additional Sessions Judge's order that granted his widowed sister-in-law, Mohini Chouhan, and her son the right to live in the family home.

Case Background

The dispute centered around a property in Nagpur. Mohini Chouhan was married to Mukesh Chouhan, the brother of the appellant, Ashish. Mohini lived in the family house with her husband until March 2004, after which they moved out due to family disputes. Her husband, Mukesh, passed away in 2008.

The property was originally owned by their mother, who, through a Will in 2004, bequeathed the ground floor to Ashish and the first floor to Mukesh. After her husband's death, Mohini's attempts to move into the portion of the house bequeathed to him were blocked by her brother-in-law, Ashish. This led her to file a case under Section 12 of the DV Act.

While the Magistrate's court initially rejected her plea, the Additional Sessions Court allowed her appeal, granting her residence rights. Ashish then challenged this decision in the High Court.

Arguments in Court

Appellant's Contentions (Ashish Chouhan):

- The counsel for Ashish argued that Mohini had not lived in the house since 2004, and thus, no "domestic relationship" existed when the DV Act came into force in 2005.

- He contended that for the Act to apply, the parties must be living together at the time the application is filed.

- An unsubstantiated claim of a divorce deed between Mohini and her late husband was also raised.

Respondent's Contentions (Mohini Chouhan):

- Mohini's counsel argued that the DV Act's definitions of "domestic relationship" and "shared household" explicitly use phrases like "has been" and "at any point of time lived together."

- This language, it was submitted, covers past relationships and does not require a subsisting one.

- Denying her entry into the house, to which her late husband had a right, amounted to economic abuse and domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act.

High Court's Expansive Interpretation

Justice Joshi-Phalke undertook a detailed analysis of the DV Act's provisions, emphasizing its nature as a piece of social welfare legislation.

On 'Domestic Relationship': The Court rejected the appellant's argument, stating, "The wording itself ‘has lived together at any point of time’, covers even the past cohabitation... Giving any other interpretation to these words, is not the object of the said provisions." The judgment clarified that interpreting the Act to cover only subsisting relationships would render its provisions "otiose" (ineffective).

On 'Shared Household' and 'Economic Abuse': The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi , which mandated an "expansive interpretation" of the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act.

The Court noted that 'economic abuse' under Section 3 includes:

"prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household."

Justice Joshi-Phalke concluded that Ashish's act of refusing Mohini entry into the property constituted domestic violence. The Court observed, "the applicant has committed the domestic violence who was in the year 2004 in a domestic relationship with her."

Final Verdict

The High Court partly allowed the revision application with a minor modification. It upheld Mohini Chouhan's right to residence but directed that she and her son are entitled to live on the first floor of the property, in line with the terms of her mother-in-law's Will, instead of the ground floor as ordered by the Sessions Court. The rest of the Sessions Court's order, including the imposition of costs, was maintained.

This judgment reinforces the protective scope of the DV Act, ensuring that women who have previously lived in a shared household are not deprived of their rights simply because they were living separately at the time of a spouse's death or when seeking legal remedy.