![Once Divorce Is Granted, Relief Can’t Be Sought Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]](https://lawhery.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/divorce-children-career.jpg)
The Bombay High Court has held that once a decree of divorce has been granted, relief cannot be sought using the spouse under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice MG Giratkar was listening to a criminal revision software filed using a forty two-year-antique lady from Nagpur who challenged a judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class dated August 20, 2015. In the stated judgment, the applicant spouse’s utility beneath Sections 12 and 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 became rejected.
Case Background
The applicant got married to the respondent’s husband on July 15, 1999. The couple had children, but the respondent’s husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights earlier than the own family court. However, the matter turned amicably settled, and they began dwelling collectively again. Thereafter, the respondent transformed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights right into a divorce petition beneath Section thirteen of the Hindu Marriage Act. Family Court allowed the stated petition and granted divorce on June 30, 2008.
In 2009, the software below Sections 12 and 18 of the DV Act was filed through the applicant alleging home violence on the part of the respondent’s husband. The said utility become resisted with the aid of the respondent at the floor that at the time of filing software, there was no home relation. She turned into not dwelling with him. She became not a spouse, given the divorce granted. Therefore, her application is prone to be rejected.
The JMFC, Nagpur, disregarded the stated utility by way of the judgment dated August 20, 2015. An attraction becomes filed earlier than the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who also recorded in his findings that there has been no home dating and, consequently, the applicant isn’t always entitled to alleviation beneath the DV Act.
Judgment
Adv AA Ghonge seemed on behalf of the applicant, and Adv RN Sen appeared for the respondent’s husband.
George submitted that even though her consumer is a divorcee, she is entitled to relief beneath the stated Act. She positioned heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Anr.
However, the court clarified that another bench of the Supreme Court had checked out the stated judgment in Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and Anr. In the stated case, the apex court found that domestic violence passed off, and an FIR turned into registered below S.498A and 406 of IPC towards the husband and his spouse and children. Then the wife obtained an ex parte “khula” (divorce) below the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti and filed a petition under S. 12 of the DV Act subsequently. The apex court held that the spouse’s petition is maintainable.
In the present example, the court docket discovered-
“In the prevailing case, the applicant is not the wife from the date of the decree of divorce, i.E. From 30th June 2008 and, consequently, there’s no courting as husband and wife among them on the time of submitting of the application.” After analyzing some other judgments of the excessive court, Justice Giratkar referred to-
“There is no dispute that the applicant/wife isn’t any extra spouse from the selection of own family Court in dated thirtieth June 2008. The said selection is not set apart utilizing the appellate Court to date. Therefore, it’s far clean that at the time of submitting a petition under the provisions of DV Act within the yr 2009, the applicant was now not the wife and, consequently, the petition itself turned into no longer maintainable.”
Finally, regarding a judgment of the Delhi High Court inside the case of Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik, the court stated- “In the existing case, there has been no domestic relation on the date of submitting of the application under the DV Act and, consequently, the applicant/wife isn’t always entitled for any protection under the said Act.”
