Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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