Latest news with #DVAct
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
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Time of India
Section 31 penalties under Domestic Violence Act not applicable to maintenance orders: Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has determined that penalties under section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are not applicable to maintenance orders. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar delivered the ruling while dismissing a Bengaluru woman's petition. The case involved the woman seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 and Rs 15 lakh for marriage expenses from her husband, along with the return of gold jewellery. She filed for interim maintenance under Section 23(2) of the Act. In Nov 2014, a magistrate granted a Rs 3,000 interim monthly maintenance. The respondent-husband paid Rs 8,000 in Dec of that year, and requested time for paying the remaining amount. The following year, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 31 of the DV Act, seeking action against the respondent for breaching the interim protection order. Following an inquiry, the magistrate convicted the respondent in Jan 2017, imposing a six-month simple imprisonment or Rs 20,000 fine. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The respondent appealed to the sessions court, which overturned the magistrate's order. The woman challenged the decision, arguing that her husband deserved punishment under Section 31 for non-compliance with maintenance orders. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Tompok muka hilang mudah! Terlaris di Guardian! URUHIME MOMOKO Undo The husband contended that punishment is provided only for protection orders passed under Section 18 which excludes monetary relief. Justice Amarannavar observed that Section 31's language is unambiguous, referring only to protection and interim protection orders. The provision applies exclusively to Section 18 protection orders, not to residence, monetary, custody, or compensation orders under sections 19-22. The court emphasised that criminal statutes require strict interpretation as they affect citizens' fundamental rights. The legislature deliberately included only protection orders under section 31 after specifically categorising them under section 18. The judge also highlighted practical implications, questioning whether failure to pay maintenance due to valid reasons should attract section 31 penalties. Such wider interpretation could overwhelm courts with section 31 cases, which the legislature did not intend. The court concluded it cannot override legislative intent by treating non-payment of maintenance as a protection order breach under section 31, thereby affirming the sessions court's ruling favouring the husband.
News18
08-07-2025
- News18
Under-Construction Flat Not ‘Shared Household', Estranged Husband Can't Be Directed To Pay EMIs: HC
The HC held Section 19 of the DV Act protects a woman's right to reside in a 'shared household' where she is living, or to seek alternate accommodation The Bombay High Court (HC) has ruled that a husband cannot be compelled to pay instalments for an under-construction flat merely because it is jointly registered with his estranged wife, holding that such a property does not qualify as a 'shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A single-judge bench of Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed that the flat in suburban Malad, though jointly owned, was still under construction, never occupied by either party, and therefore fell outside the purview of Section 2(s) of the DV Act. 'In the present case, the possession of the alleged 'shared household' is not yet handed over, the instalments are still not fully paid. In the circumstances, it would be stretching it too far to direct the husband to pay the remaining instalments or direct the employer to deduct the instalments from his salary and pay it to the bank," the court observed. The case The wife had challenged concurrent orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court that refused to direct her husband to continue paying EMIs for the property, which she claimed as the 'shared household". The husband, however, argued that the couple never resided in the flat, and that divorce proceedings had been pending since 2020. The court's observations 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a social welfare legislation intended to provide protection to victims of domestic violence and abuse occurring within the family. The provisions ensure that the victims are provided financially, as well as protection from being ousted from their 'Shared Household", where the victim is residing, the victim can even seek alternate accommodation, or direction to pay rent of the alternate accommodation," the Court highlighted. It stated that the victim's right of residence is covered under Section 19 of the DV Act, but the kind of relief claimed by the Petitioner unfortunately does not fit under any of the reliefs provided under Section 19 of the DV Act. The single judge bench held that Section 19 of the DV Act protects a woman's right to reside in a 'shared household" where she is actually living, or to seek alternate accommodation, but does not extend to under-construction properties not in possession of either party. 'The prayer made by the Petitioner would not be maintainable since the property/flat is still under construction and not in possession of either of the parties, therefore, it would not fall within the purview of 'shared household', as defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act," the Court ruled, dismissing the wife's plea. Conclusively, the court ordered, 'Hence, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded vide order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2024, thereby confirming the order dated 03.06.2024, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, in CC No.182/DV/2022. The prayer made by the Petitioner is not capable of being granted considering the scope of Section 19(d) and (e) of the D.V. Act." Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
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
