Skip to main content

Divorce does not absolve the husband from liability under the Domestic Violence Act

Deciding a case of domestic violence, where the decree of divorce had been obtained subsequently, the Court held that an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) including monetary relief under Section 20, Child Custody under Section 21, Compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the DV Act.

In the present case, the appellant obtained an ex parte ‘Khula’ from Mufti under the Muslim Personal Law on 09.05.2008 and filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act on 29.09.2009 alleging that the respondent was not providing maintenance to her and her child under Sections 8 to 23 of the DV Act. The bench of Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and S.A. Bobde, JJ, considering the fact that the respondent had challenged the ex parte ‘Khula’ and had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, held that it cannot be concluded that the decree of divorce was granted on 09.05.2008.

Moreover, the Court was of the opinion that even if after obtaining the decree of divorce, the wife who had shared the household in the past but was no longer residing with the husband, can file a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act if subjected to domestic violence seeking relief under Section 18 to 23 of the DV Act. In the present case, where the parties were represented by Shilpa Singh and KC Dua, the alleged domestic violence took place between January, 2006 and September, 2007. Hence, the Court held that even if it is accepted that the appellant had obtained ex parte ‘Khula’ under the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti on 09.05.2008, the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was maintainable. [Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2014, decided on 18.09.2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more