No maintenance sans domestic violence under Act

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has held that a spouse cannot be entitled to seek repairs from her estranged husband beneath the Domestic Violence Act unless she has in fact been subjected to any of the acts or behavior defined as "domestic violence" beneath the Act.
In a judgment pronounced previous ultimate week, Justice Bharati Dangre held that a spouse may now not be entitled to repairs beneath the Act simply as a result of a discord had developed in the marriage.

Instead, the spouse, looking for such repairs, will qualify as an aggrieved individual entitled to repairs provided that "she alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent husband."

Justice Dangre was hearing a petition filed via a town resident challenging a circle of relatives court docket order that had awarded a repairs of Rs 2 lakh per month to his estranged spouse.

The petitioner's lawyer, advocate Seema Sarnaik, told HC that the circle of relatives court docket had erred in its order as a result of now not most effective had it failed to come up at an inexpensive quantity in response to the husband's earnings, however, more importantly, it had failed to assess whether or now not the spouse fell into the class of aggrieved individual as defined via the Act.

Sarnaik told the HC that the couple was married in 1997 and had two children.

Some years in the past, the spouse had "lost interest" in the marital courting and had determined to are living separately from the husband.

She additionally had number one custody of each the youngsters.

Her utility in the circle of relatives court docket looking for repairs beneath Section 20 of the Act was in response to the primary argument that the husband earned more than Rs 15 lakh per month and that he was vulnerable to be sure that she maintained the similar way of life as that which she had while staying with him, Sarnaik stated.

However, the spouse will also be the aggrieved individual entitled to repairs as defined beneath the Act provided that she has been subjected to any act of home violence via the husband, Sarnaik argued.

The lady's advocate, Abhijit Sarwate sought that the circle of relatives court docket order be upheld since the spouse was entitled to a excellent way of life.

Justice Dangre, then again, took observe of Sarnaik's argument on the definition of an aggrieved individual beneath the Act.

"The domestic violence mentioned under the Act has a specific meaning assigned to it. It includes any act, omission, or commission, or conduct of the respondent (husband or his family)," Dangre stated.

"A court may direct payment of monetary relief to an aggrieved person to help her meet the expenses incurred and loss suffered as a result of an act of such domestic violence," she stated.

Justice Dangre held that, thus, it was transparent that "granting of relief was dependent upon one of the most important aspects, namely, that the said relief was being granted to an aggrieved person who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence."

In the existing case, she famous that while the spouse had cited the husbands earnings and way of life and so forth, she had now not made a single accusation of any act of home violence.

She, thus, put aside the circle of relatives court docket order.

However, noting that since the spouse did not have a permanent supply of income, it was the husbands responsibility to assist handle her, she ordered that the circle of relatives court docket relook the case and award an meantime repairs of Rs 25,000 to the spouse.