Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards

Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court

28 November 2024 9:54 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench dismissed a husband’s revision application challenging maintenance awarded to his divorced wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). Justice Sandipkumar C. More reaffirmed the principle that a divorced wife remains entitled to reliefs under the PWDV Act for acts of domestic violence committed during the period of domestic relationship.

The Court, relying on landmark precedents including the Supreme Court's ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi and V. D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, upheld the wife’s entitlement to maintenance of ₹3,000 per month, enhanced from ₹1,500 by the appellate court.

"Domestic Relationship Need Not Be Subsisting at the Time of Claim"

The husband argued that the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship post-divorce barred the wife from claiming relief under the PWDV Act. The Court dismissed this argument, citing the Supreme Court’s observation in Prabha Tyagi:

"Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent at the time of filing an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, she can still claim reliefs if subjected to domestic violence during the period of domestic relationship."

The Court also emphasized that the provisions of the PWDV Act aim to provide comprehensive protection to women, including divorced wives, ensuring that the act of divorce does not negate liabilities arising from past domestic violence.


The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2005. The wife filed for divorce in 2012 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was granted in 2014. Simultaneously, she filed a petition under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The trial court awarded her ₹1,500 per month, which the appellate court later enhanced to ₹3,000. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the husband filed the present revision application.

Can a divorced wife claim relief under the PWDV Act?
Does the absence of a current domestic relationship preclude claims for past violence?
Citing the Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi, the Court held that:
"A divorce does not nullify a woman’s right to seek relief under the PWDV Act for violence experienced during the marriage. Domestic violence, once committed, establishes liability irrespective of the subsequent marital status of the aggrieved person."

The Court further reiterated the broad protective scope of the PWDV Act, observing that the legislation provides redress for women even if they are no longer in a shared household or in a subsisting domestic relationship with the respondent at the time of filing.

The Court found no perversity in the appellate court’s decision to enhance the wife’s maintenance. It noted that the maintenance was tied to acts of domestic violence alleged during the marriage, making the enhancement reasonable and legally sound. Referring to V. D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, the Court stated:
"A decree of divorce does not absolve a respondent of liability for acts of domestic violence committed during the period of marriage."

Justice Sandipkumar C. More concluded that the husband’s arguments were unsustainable in light of established jurisprudence, dismissing the revision application and affirming the maintenance of ₹3,000 per month. The judgment reaffirms the principle that divorced women are entitled to reliefs under the PWDV Act for domestic violence occurring during the marriage, ensuring continued protection and justice for survivors.

Date of Decision: November 27, 2024
 

Similar News