Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

SUBSEQUENT DIVORCE NOT ABSOLVED LIABILITY FOR PAST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - AWARDS MAINTENANCE – BOMB. HC

06 September 2024 5:16 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the honorable G. A. Sanap, J., has pronounced that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even after the dissolution of their marriage. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a subsequent divorce does not absolve the liability of the respondent for past domestic violence offenses.

"The literal construction of the provisions shows that even women who were in a past relationship are entitled to invoke the provisions of the D.V. Act."

The court held that "an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005." This landmark ruling ensures that divorced Muslim women can seek relief, including monetary support, child custody, compensation, and interim orders, under the Domestic Violence Act.

The judgment also addressed the issue of the maintenance quantum. The court observed that the husband, a chemical engineer working in Saudi Arabia, had suppressed his actual income during the proceedings. The wife, who had cohabited with the husband for nearly 11 years in Saudi Arabia, presented evidence of their high standard of living. The court stated that the wife is entitled to maintain the lifestyle and standard she was accustomed to while staying with her husband. It quantified the maintenance at 25% of the husband's net salary, taking into account the adverse inference drawn against him for suppressing evidence.

The decision cites several precedents to support its conclusions. It relies on the case of Atmaram Narayan Sanap Vs. Sangita Atmaram Sanap, where the court emphasized that even after divorce, an aggrieved person can file a proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act for past domestic violence. Additionally, the court refers to the case of Smt. Bharati Naik v. Shri Ravi Ramnath and Halarnkar, which establishes that the definition of "aggrieved person" includes past relationships.

This judgment has far-reaching implications for divorced Muslim women who have experienced domestic violence. It recognizes their rights and provides a legal avenue for seeking maintenance and other necessary reliefs. The ruling not only upholds the principles of gender justice but also ensures that divorced Muslim women can lead dignified lives.

Date of Decision: 09/06/2023

Ahsanullah @ Javed Khan vs  Shahana Parvin 

Latest Legal News