MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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