Government Quarters Cannot Be Claimed as Shared Households Under PWDV Act Following Employee’s Retirement

Lopamudra Singha Roy (O.P. No. 1) filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against her husband (O.P. No. 2), an employee of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Initially, the Trial Court granted an interim residence order allowing her to stay in an RBI staff quarter.

Upon being informed that the husband was set to retire in July 2025, the Trial Court modified the order on 29.7.2024, directing the wife to move to a matrimonial house in Chetla or, in default, receive Rs. 15,000/- monthly for alternative accommodation.

The wife appealed this modification (Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2024), and the Appellate Court stayed the Trial Court’s order on 29.8.2024, effectively allowing her to remain in the RBI quarter.

The RBI (Petitioner) moved the High Court, contending that as a non-party adversely affected, the stay permitted unauthorized occupation of service property post-retirement.

1. Whether an official government/institutional staff quarter can be classified as a "shared household" under the PWDV Act after the employee-spouse has superannuated or ceased to be in service?

2. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in staying a Trial Court order that sought to vacate an institutional quarter in exchange for alternative accommodation/rent after the husband's retirement?

The court applied Section 12 and Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), which protects a wife's right to reside in a "shared household".

The court relied on the legal principle that a retiree has no fundamental right to shelter in government property indefinitely and that such property ceases to be a shared household once the legal right to occupy (the tenure of service) ends.

The Court reasoned that while the PWDV Act provides a legally protected right to reside in properties owned, rented, or legally possessed by the husband, this right is co-terminus with the husband's legal right to the premises in the context of official quarters.

Since the husband retired on 31st July 2025, his legal right to occupy the RBI quarter ceased, and the property was required for other in-service staff.

The Court observed that the Trial Court had already balanced the wife's rights by providing an alternative residence or a monthly rental allowance of Rs. 15,000/-.

Consequently, the Appellate Court’s stay of the Trial Court's modification was deemed unsustainable as it facilitated the unauthorized detention of institutional property.

The High Court vacated the interim stay dated 29.8.2024 passed by the Appellate Court and directed the court below to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2024 within three months. The RBI quarter must be vacated, but the wife's right to alternative accommodation or rent remains protected under the Trial Court's modified order.