Latest news with #DV)Act
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Marriage declared null & void, but wife can still claim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay HC
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that a woman whose marriage was declared null and void by the family court is still entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This reaffirms that annulment does not dilute a woman's rights under protective legislation. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by a Jaripatka-based private sector employee, who challenged the lower courts' decision ordering him to pay ₹5,000 in monthly maintenance, ₹2,000 in house rent, and ₹50,000 as compensation to his estranged wife. The man contended that since his marriage was annulled ex parte by a family court in 2017, the woman ceased to be his wife and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. Rejecting this argument, the court observed that the family court's decree of nullity was passed without the wife's presence and was based entirely on unsubstantiated claims made by the petitioner. "When a husband levels serious allegations of such a nature, the onus on him is very heavy," Justice Joshi-Phalke noted, adding, "in ex parte proceedings, the plaintiff retains the burden of proof". The man alleged that the woman concealed a prior relationship before marriage on November 6, 2016, and used this claim as basis for annulment. However, the court found his statements vague and without corroboration. "He neither examined any witnesses nor produced any solid proof. His evidence is not specific," the judge remarked. The woman had moved a complaint under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in Katol magistrate court, citing mental abuse, insult, and restrictions imposed on her communication with her parents. She said she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental house due to mistreatment, and since no provision for her maintenance was made by her husband, she was entitled to relief under DV Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The high court affirmed the earlier rulings of the magistrate and sessions courts, upholding her entitlement to maintenance despite the annulment. "Considering the fact the wife has no source of income to lead her life, the family court granted compensation. I do not find any illegality in the order," Justice Joshi-Phalke concluded. Key Takeaways from Bombay High Court Ruling: Ex parte annulment based solely on vague or unsubstantiated claims carries limited legal weight Burden of proof lies on husband in such cases, particularly when making serious allegations Relief under Domestic Violence Act is not contingent on legal status of marriage Protective legislation remains applicable if evidence of abuse or abandonment is credible
Hindustan Times
06-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Under-construction flat not a ‘shared household' under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC
MUMBAI: In a significant ruling on the interpretation of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, the Bombay high court has held that an under-construction flat cannot be considered a 'shared household' under the law, and therefore, a man cannot be compelled to pay its balance cost to secure his estranged wife's right of residence. Under-construction flat not a 'shared household' under Domestic Violence Act, rules HC Justice Manjusha Deshpande passed the order on Friday while dismissing a petition filed by a 45-year-old woman from Goregaon. She had sought directions to her estranged husband, a 55-year-old software engineer working in the US, to pay the remaining instalments of a ₹3.52-crore flat in Malad West booked in their joint names. The court noted that since the possession of the flat had not been handed over and the payments were still incomplete, the property could not be considered a 'shared household' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The couple married in May 2013 and initially lived in a rented flat in Thane. In 2019, the man moved to the US for work. According to the woman, during his time abroad, he had an extra-marital affair. Despite strained relations, she said she gave the marriage another chance when he returned to India in February 2020 and promised to settle down with her in Mumbai. As a gesture of commitment, the husband booked the 1,029-sq-ft under-construction apartment in Malad West. However, the woman alleged that after moving into another rented flat in Malad in 2021, the man resumed harassing her, prompting her to file a domestic violence complaint before the Borivali magistrate court. In the course of those proceedings, she sought an order directing him to pay the balance consideration for the Malad flat, claiming it was necessary to protect her right of residence under section 19 of the DV Act. The magistrate court rejected her plea on June 3, 2024. The order was upheld by the Dindoshi sessions court on October 19, 2024. She then moved the high court in appeal. Dismissing her plea, justice Deshpande observed that although the DV Act protects a woman's right to reside in the shared household, the definition requires actual possession or residence. 'The flat is under construction and not in possession of either party. Therefore, it would not qualify as a shared household,' the court ruled. Directing the husband or his employer to pay pending instalments would be 'stretching it too far', the court added, concluding that such a direction was beyond the scope of the DV Act.
Time of India
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Maintenance: HC stays order against ex-min
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday stayed a lower court's order that directed former minister and NCP neta Dhananjay Munde to pay interim maintenance to a woman who claims to be his first wife subject to him depositing 50% of the amount in court. Justice Manjusha Deshpande directed the stay on the April 5 order of a sessions court that had upheld a magistrate's order. On Feb 4, the magistrate had directed Munde to pay the woman Rs 1.25 lakh per month and Rs 75,000 per month to their daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. Munde's petition said he has been legally married to his wife since 2001 and they have three children. He denied marrying the woman (complainant) and said the DV Act is not applicable in this case. He said she was aware of his marital status when they entered into a relationship. The woman claimed she married Munde in 1999. tnn
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Time of India
Court: Mental illness no bar to custody unless danger to kid
This is a representational AI image (Pic credit: Lexica) MUMBAI: Observing that a parent suffering from mental illness is not per se disqualified from custody unless it is shown to endanger the child's welfare, a sessions court dismissed a man's plea to take custody of his 16-year-old son. The man had filed an appeal against a magistrate awarding custody to the mother. "...It is evident that the magistrate interacted with the child, considered the best interest and welfare of the minor, and directed the parties to undergo mediation before passing the order. The magistrate, while granting temporary custody, considered the curriculum course of the child and the natural affection of the mother in the right prospect," the judge said. The judge said it is well settled in matters of custody that a minor's welfare is paramount and not parents' legal rights. "...The minor is nearing adulthood, and the order is only for temporary magistrate did not commit any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference." The mother had filed a complaint against the father under Domestic Violence (DV) Act in 2022. In March and April this year, orders were issued granting temporary custody of the son to the mother till May 15, and the father was directed to present him in court in Mumbai every month after visitation. A production warrant was also issued following the father's alleged failure to produce the child. The father's counsel said the magistrate's order was passed without giving him a fair opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The appeal also said the lower court failed to prioritise the child's welfare, who was already in the father's care in Patna, where he is studying in Class 11. The father's counsel questioned the magistrate's jurisdiction under DV Act to issue such custody orders and said there was no change in circumstances warranting a transfer of custody. Concerns were also raised about a potential trauma to the child due to the sudden change in custody without proper assessment. The mother's advocate highlighted the father's alleged non-compliance with the initial custody order and that he filed the appeal only after the production warrant was issued. Allegations regarding the mother's mental health were dismissed as unsubstantiated and defamatory, with a medical report presented as evidence of her sound mental state. The court was also told that the father had previously filed a transfer application before the chief metropolitan magistrate, which was rejected in Dec 2024, and that he had not complied with similar custody directions in the past. The sessions court found no evidence to support the father's claims that the magistrate ignored the child's academic commitments or that the mother has a mental illness.
