[ad_1]
The Bombay High Court ruled last week that even after a divorce, a Muslim woman can seek maintenance and protection under the Domestic Violence Protection of Women Act 2005 (DV Act).
Single Justice Panel GA Sanap noted that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the husband (non-applicant according to the present court) has given divorce(s) to the wife (applicant), it cannot deny them maintenance in the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act Biodiversity.
The court was hearing an application for criminal review filed by the husband against the order dated 17th November 2021, which was passed by the Sessions Judge Akola, dismissing the appeal filed by him and allowing the criminal appeal filed by his wife, strengthened the amount of alimony estimated by the judge, and awarded it at the rate of Rs 16,000 per month to the non-applicant/wife and Rs 2,500 for a minor son with effect from 1st March 2014.
They married on January 7, 2001 and have three children. They both went to Saudi Arabia in 2006 and cohabited. According to the wife, during the early days, there was a dispute between her relatives and in-laws because they were staying in the same building in Akola. She said her husband abused her as a result of the conflict. Finally, in 2012, she returned to India with her husband and their children and stayed at her husband’s home.
She alleged that she was prompted to file a complaint against her relatives and that when she refused, she was abused and her in-laws tried to kill her. She took her youngest son to her parents’ home and filed a complaint against her husband and his relatives. Her husband returned to Saudi Arabia. It alleged that he did not provide for maintenance and filed a claim for maintenance, home sharing and compensation.
Her husband denied the accusations in the application. He claimed she was arguing with him, and when she left the house he tried everything he could to get her back. When all his attempts failed, he said, he gave a divorce to his wife, and she was duly informed of it with the help of registered mail.
The judge granted maintenance of 7,500 rupees per month to the wife and 2,500 rupees per month to their son. The judge also ordered a monthly rent of 2,000 rupees. In addition, the judge awarded the plaintiff compensation of Rs 50,000.
The Sessions Court boosted the maintenance to 16,000 rupees per month. After that, the husband filed the current petition.
The lawyer representing the husband claimed that the wife left the house of her own volition and took refuge in her father’s house. It was also stated that at the date of filing the application, there was no internal relationship between the two parties.
Further, the lawyer stated that the wife being a Muslim is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband under Article 4 and Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Divorce Rights) Act 1986.
The lawyer representing the wife stated that she had proven that she had been subjected to domestic violence. It was also said that even if it was proved that her husband had given the divorce, she would be entitled to seek relief under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in respect of the previous domestic violence.
Finally, it was said that a Muslim woman, even after divorce, has the right to receive maintenance from her husband after the waiting period, as long as she does not remarry.
After hearing the two parties, the court noted that upon reviewing the evidence, both the judge and the session judge concluded that the complainant was subjected to domestic violence by her husband.
Judge Snap relied on the case of Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman has the right to alimony as long as she does not remarry because Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a valid law that a divorced Muslim must benefit from. slim.
The Court followed the same reasoning and noted that although the husband had given the divorce, the woman could not be denied maintenance in the proceedings under Section 12 of the BOD. The High Commissioner reiterated that the subsequent divorce decision will not absolve the husband of responsibility for domestic violence and will not deprive the victim of a benefit.
The court highlighted that the husband withheld his actual income but admitted in the interrogation that he had been a chemical engineer in Saudi Arabia since 2005, with 14 years of experience. According to HC, his monthly income is around 20,000 riyals plus bonuses, which comes to around 3,50,000 rupees.
According to the court, the wife has the right to maintain the lifestyle and standard of living to which she is accustomed during her stay with her husband. “The husband cannot question the wife in this matter,” the judge added.
Finally, the HC indicated that the enhanced maintenance granted by the Sessions Court would meet her basic needs.
Accordingly, the criminal review submitted by the husband was rejected.
[ad_2]
