Bharati Naik v Ravi Ramnath Halarnak, MANU/MH/2048/2010
The husband and wife were divorced but the wife stayed in the matrimonial house itself after that. It was after she was forcefully driven out of the matrimonial house that she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking residential orders. The husband filed a petition for discharge. The magistrate allowed the wife’s application stating that there was a past relationship and discharged the husband’s petition. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court where the part of the order rejecting the husband’s petition was stayed. Thereafter the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. Upholding the magistrate’s order, the Bombay High Court held that though whether the wife is entitled to protection or not in a given fact situation would be for the concerned court to decide even a divorced wife is entitled to invoke the provisions of the DV Act.
Aradhana Walkade v Chandrashekar Vaidya, MANU/MH/0662/2014
The husband refused to maintain his wife and their child. So the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act. The husband challenged the application contending that it was not maintainable since they were divorced but this contention was rejected by the magistrate. Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision in the sessions court where the magistrate’s order was quashed. Against this, the wife filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Setting aside the sessions court’s order, the Bombay High Court held that the defining clause in section 2 of the DV Act stipulates that persons who “live” or ” have at any point of time lived together in a shared household”, indicating past matrimonial relationship. Nowhere in the section is the word ‘wife’ mentioned. Further, the definition has mentioned the word “maintenance”. Therefore, if there is an order of the court to pay maintenance to the “aggrieved person” then if such maintenance is stopped or the aggrieved person is deprived of such maintenance, it can be considered as an economic abuse.
Krishna Bhattacharjee v Sarathi Choudhury, MANU/SC/1330/2015
Sudipta Saha Roy v Dola Roy, MANU/WB/0475/2016
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband for maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay the wife Rs.6,000/- p.m. as maintenance and also Rs.3,000/-p.m. as rent of her alternative accommodation. Thereafter, the wife filed a matrimonial suit before the family court praying for annulment of the marriage on the ground of husband’s refusal to consummate the marriage and accordingly, the marriage was annulled. The husband filed a revision application in the High Court for quashing the proceedings initiated by the wife under the DV Act on the ground that it was not maintainable since the marriage has been annulled.
Dismissing the revision application filed by the husband, the Calcutta High Court held that the wife was an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 2(a) of the DV Act since she lived with the husband in the matrimonial home. Though the wife filed the matrimonial suit, the proceedings filed under section 12 of the DV Act are maintainable under the law as the application was filed before the annulment of the marriage.
Atmaram v Sangita, MANU/MH/3099/2019
Since their marriage. the husband subjected the wife to cruelty and harassment. Later he also obtained divorce by fraudulent means. Despite this, they stayed in the shared household along with their daughter. The cruelty and harassment continued even after the fraudulent divorce. So the wife filed for reliefs under the DV Act. The magistrate directed the husband to restrain from committing domestic violence on his wife, pay her an amount of Rs.7,500/- p.m. and Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the daughter as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the wife for the cruelty he had inflicted on her. The husband challenged this in the sessions court which held that the wife was still in a domestic relation with the husband and there was enough evidence to conclude that she was subjected to domestic violence. Thereafter, the husband preferred revision in the Bombay High Court.
Dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that there was ample evidence before the two courts below to come to a plausible conclusion that though the decree of divorce was obtained, the husband and the wife continued to cohabit in the same household and hence her application was maintainable.
Krishnendu Das Thakur v State of West of Bengal, MANU/WB/1496/2019