TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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