Gajendra Singh v Minakshi Yadav, MANU/RH/0338/2011
The husband along with his family tortured the wife for dowry. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/-p.m. as maintenance. Rs.1,000/-p.m. to their minor son and Rs.500/-p.m. as rent for alternative accommodation to the wife. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court where it was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a revision in the High Court contending that the domestic violence took place before the DV Act came into being. The Bombay High Court held that the wife has a right of protection under the DV Act. The question of retrospective application does not arise as the wife was denied maintenance and access to shared household even after 2006. Since civil wrongs are continued to be committed against her, she is certainly entitled to move the application under section 12 of the DV Act.
Shri Maroti v. Sau Gangubai MH, 2011 .PDF
The wife was continuously assaulted by her alcoholic husband. So she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance for herself and her son. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to his son and to arrange for rental accommodation for the residence of the wife and son. Aggrieved the husband filed an appeal in the session court wherein the court affirmed the orders of the magistrate’s court. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that the incidents of domestic violence narrated by the wife are prior to the DV Act coming into force. The Bombay High Court upheld the orders of the lower courts and emphasized that the DV Act has retrospective effect.
Saraswathy v Babu, MANU/SC/1193/2013
Ever since the marriage, the husband and his family members have tortured the wife for dowry. Therefore, the wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The magistrate passed an order restraining the husband from inflicting domestic violence on the wife, a residence order directing the husband to allow the wife to reside in the matrimonial house and to pay her an amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as maintenance. The husband challenged this in the sessions court where the maintenance order was upheld but the residence order was set aside. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the Madras High Court where the order of the sessions court was upheld. Thereafter, she filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
While allowing the appeal filed by the aggrieved wife, the Supreme Court held that section 2(g) of the DV Act states that “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3 of the DV Act. Section 3 is the definition of domestic violence. Clause (iv) of Section 3 relates to “economic abuse” which 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 as evident from Clause (c) of Section 3(iv).
In the current case, even after the order was passed by the lower court, the husband did not allow the wife to reside in the matrimonial home which was the shared household. It was held that there was continuance of domestic violence committed by the husband against the wife. The judgement of the High court was set aside and the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife as compensation.
Sabana v Mohd. Talib Ali, MANU/RH/1336/2013
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance, monetary relief and residence. The magistrate and the sessions court both held that while filing the application the wife was not staying with the husband and that the DV Act does not have retrospective effect. Thereafter the wife challenged this in the High Court. The matter was referred to the larger bench wherein the Rajasthan High Court construed the definition of domestic relationship as well as aggrieved woman and held that the DV Act is retrospective in its application.
Deb Shankar Banerjee v. State Of Jharkhand_Anr, JH, 2016 .PDF
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The husband filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that the time period mentioned by the wife where allegedly domestic violence took place was much before the Act came into effect hence it is not maintainable. Relying on various rulings of the Supreme Court on this issue, the Jharkhand High Court, held that the DV Act has retrospective effect in nature and hence the proceedings are maintainable.
Mr R Seran v. Mrs R Vijayabharathi, TN , 2018 .PDF
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The husband filed an application in the High Court for quashing, contending that the time period mentioned by the wife where allegedly domestic violence took place was much before the Act came into effect and hence it is not maintainable.
Relying on sections 2(a) and 2(f) of the Act, the Madras High Court emphasized that the domestic relationship as laid down in section 2(f) of the Act includes any domestic relationship either of the present moment or at any point of time in the past, where the parties have lived together in a shared household. The question, whether a woman, who was in a domestic relationship with the respondent and was subjected to domestic violence prior to coming into force of the DV Act falls within the definition of aggrieved person was answered in the affirmative.