Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Freedom of Speech Ends Where National Security Begins: Allahabad HC Rejects Neha Singh Rathore’s Anticipatory Bail Juvenile Cannot Be Jailed Even During Age Inquiry: Allahabad High Court Declares 8-Year Custody of Murder Accused Illegal Mere Passage of Time Is No Ground for Bail under Gangster Act: Allahabad High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea of Habitual Offender Judicial Discretion Permits Tailored Sentencing Even in Heinous Offences: Supreme Court Merely Three Generic Questions Asked Under Section 313 CrPC – This is Not Compliance, But a Mockery of Due Process: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Evade Responsibility by Calling Their Own Orders Ambiguous: Supreme Court Revives Contempt Plea in Land Acquisition Case Conviction Can Stand, But Sentence Must Serve Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Imprisonment in Grievous Hurt Case After Compromise Between Parties Explanation to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act Makes It Abundantly Clear That Pre-2005 Partitions Cannot Be Reopened: : Orissa High Court Dismisses Daughters’ Claim No Valid ‘Nikah’ Without Halala Compliance: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Order Amid Dispute Over Muslim Woman’s Remarriage With Former Husband Custodial Beating Not Part of Official Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Police Officer’s Plea for Protection Under Section 197 CrPC Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Adult Sons Can't Hide Behind Mother's Saree to Excuse Inaction: Orissa High Court Refuses to Condon Delay in Restoration Plea Judicial Service Exam Cannot Sustain on Legal Inaccuracy: Karnataka High Court Intervenes to Correct Legal Misinterpretation in Judicial Exam Answer Key POCSO Charges Fail Without Proof of Minority: Karnataka High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Mere Caste Identity Not Enough to Prove Atrocity: Supreme Court Acquits Two in SC/ST Act Case, Slams “Perverse” High Court Inference Section 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Mechanically by Ignoring Status Report & Accused’s Conduct: Supreme Court Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement

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

29 November 2024 2:36 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
 

Latest Legal News