Unexplained Possession Of Stolen Ornaments Soon After Murder Attracts Presumption Of Guilt Under Section 114 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Identical Pay Scale Cannot Be Basis To Confer Benefits Meant Specifically For Scientists: Gauhati High Court Suit For Partition Not Maintainable Without Seeking Cancellation Of Registered Partition Deed Signed By Plaintiff: Karnataka High Court Law Officers Have No Vested Right To Complete 3-Year Tenure, State Can Terminate Services Early: Orissa High Court Carpenter With Amputated Leg Suffers 100% Functional Disability As Trade Requires Squatting & Sitting Position: Supreme Court Fatal Fall Into Dry Canal During Scuffle Attracts Section 304 Part II IPC: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence To Period Undergone Minor Rape Victim Permitted To Terminate 28-Week Pregnancy: Delhi High Court Cites Right To Bodily Autonomy Under Article 21 Investigation Initiated Without FIR Registration Illegal; Prosecution Documents Prepared After Trap Proceedings 'Table Investigation': Andhra Pradesh High Court Successive Writ Petitions On Same Cause Of Action Barred By Constructive Res Judicata: Bombay High Court Dismisses BPCL's Challenge To Octroi Levy Court Fees Must Be Refunded If Commercial Suit Is Rejected For Non-Compliance With Pre-Institution Mediation: Calcutta High Court Deduction Under Section 80-I Must Be Computed On Profits And Gains Without Reducing Investment Deposit Claim Under Section 32AB: Gujarat High Court Employee’s Right To Appeal Not Lost If Disciplinary Action Initiated By Higher Authority Provided Further Appeal Lies To Superior Body: Kerala High Court Preceding 10-Year Period For Charge Sheets Mandatory To Invoke 'Organized Crime' Under Section 111 BNS: J&K High Court Grants Bail PIL Petitioners Doubted By Court Must Annex Previous Adverse Orders In Future Filings: Kerala High Court Shifting Drug Traffickers To Distant States Necessary To Disrupt Supply Chains: Calcutta High Court Upholds PITNDPS Detention

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