INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 18 April 2023. In the case of AHSANULLAH @ JAVEED KHAN S/O CHAND KHAN Vs SHAHANA PARVIN @ BRIJIS W/O AHSANULLAH @ JAVEED KHAN IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2022 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G. A. SANAP, the court dealt with a case of domestic violence and maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The judgment, dated 17th November 2021, was passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Akola, Maharashtra. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband (non-applicant) and allowed the appeal filed by the wife (applicant), thereby enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife..
FACTS
The case involved a married couple from Akola, Maharashtra. The wife alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his relatives. The wife claimed that the husband’s relatives instigated him to ill-treat and torture her in order to force her to compromise a criminal case against them. The wife further alleged that she was physically and mentally tortured, leading her to seek shelter with her parents on multiple occasions. The husband denied the allegations and stated that the wife left him of her own accord and refused to resume cohabitation.
PROCEEDINGS AND FINDINGS
The matter was initially brought before the learned Magistrate, who held that the wife had been subjected to domestic violence and awarded her maintenance, compensation, and other reliefs under the DV Act. Both parties appealed this decision. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the husband’s appeal and allowed the wife’s appeal, increasing the maintenance amount.
The husband’s arguments in the revision application before the higher court were three-fold. First, he contended that there was no domestic relationship between the parties at the time of filing the application under the DV Act. Second, he claimed that as a divorced Muslim woman, the wife was not entitled to maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Third, he challenged the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Sessions Judge.
The wife, on the other hand, argued that she had proven the domestic violence she experienced and that she qualified as an aggrieved person under the DV Act. She also contended that even as a divorced Muslim woman, she was entitled to maintenance after the initial period if she did not remarry.
ANALYSIS
The court carefully examined the evidence and concurrent findings of the lower courts. It noted that both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had thoroughly considered the evidence and found in favour of the wife. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the higher court would only interfere with the lower court’s decision if it was perverse, arbitrary, or unreasonable. However, after reviewing the record, the court found no grounds for such interference.
The court emphasized that the definitions of “aggrieved person” and “domestic relationship” under the DV Act did not require the parties to be residing together at the time of filing the application. Section 2(a) of the DV Act defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The court cited the Supreme Court case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2013) 4 SCC 1, which supported this interpretation.
Moreover, the court held that even if the husband had given the wife a Talaq (divorce), she could still seek relief under Section 12 of the DV Act for past domestic violence. Section 12 of the DV Act provides for the right to obtain an order for protection, residence, monetary relief, or compensation. The court referred to the Supreme Court case of Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, (2010) 1 SCC 666, which recognized the rights of Muslim women to seek maintenance beyond the initial period.
The court also addressed the issue of maintenance and observed that the amount awarded by the Sessions Judge was justified considering the wife’s financial needs and the husband’s income and obligations. The court referred to the Supreme Court case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 14 SCC 209, which highlighted the need to ensure reasonable and fair maintenance to victims of domestic violence.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of the DV Act in addressing domestic violence and protecting the rights of women. It clarifies that a woman can seek relief under the DV Act even if she is not residing with the respondent at the time of filing the application. Additionally, the judgment reaffirms the application of the DV Act to all women, irrespective of their religion or marital status.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
