Introduction

In Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan v. Mohini Mukesh Chauhan & Anr. the Bombay High Court clarified what “shared household” and “right to reside” mean under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that denying residence to a brother’s wife in a shared household amounts to domestic violence. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke authored the judgment. It emphasizes that the Act grants a woman a right to live in a shared household even if she has no legal title or share in it.

Facts of Case

Mohini, the non-applicant no.1 in the case, married the brother of the applicant. She lived in the family house with her husband until about 2004. Her husband died in 2008. After his death, the applicant (her brother-in-law) denied Mohini access to the house. She also has a son. The applicant claimed that Mohini never lived in the shared household after 2004. He also argued that a divorce deed existed between her and her husband. The Additional Sessions Judge granted Mohini and her son the right to reside in the shared household. The applicant challenged that order via criminal revision.

What Court Says

The Bombay High Court rejected the applicant’s arguments. It found that the definitions of “aggrieved person” (Section 2(a)) and “domestic relationship” (Section 2(f)) in the Act include persons who “have lived together at any point of time.” The Court held that past cohabitation satisfies those definitions. The Court said the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 exists even without title or ownership. It said actual residence does not matter. It also declared that Mohini’s alleged divorce deed has no legal validity, because only a competent civil court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act can dissolve a marriage.

The Court held that refusing Mohini access to the shared household amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The refusal constituted “economic abuse,” because Mohini lost access to shelter she was entitled to by virtue of the domestic relationship. The Court modified the relief order: it allowed Mohini and her son to live on the first floor of the property, in line with a Will made by her mother-in-law.

For any specific query call at ‪+91 – 8569843472‬

Implications

This judgment reinforces that the Domestic Violence Act protects a woman’s right to reside in a shared household based on past cohabitation. It shows the Court will not allow defendants to deny rights merely because a wife may lack legal ownership or current occupancy. This decision may create precedent for many women who face eviction or denial of residence by in-laws. It strengthens the scope of “aggrieved person” under the Act. This also underlines that purported divorce deeds, unless granted by competent courts, will not absolve obligations under the Domestic Violence Act.

It may also push families and courts to recognize that economic abuse includes deprivation of basic shelter in shared households. The judgment may reduce misuse of property or family residence claims. It may encourage faster relief for victims when courts and tribunals apply Sections 2, 3, and 17 of the Act correctly.