Subsequent Divorce Decree Doesn T Absolve Husband Of Liability For Domestic Violence Says Lucknow Bench Of Allahabad Hc

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has held that a subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the husband of liability for an act of domestic violence once committed, or deny the aggrieved wife the benefits to which she may be entitled under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Justice Brij Raj Singh passed the order on July 7 on an application by the ex-husband seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on the ground that the applicant’s divorce petition had already been decreed in his favour.

The applicant sought quashing of the complaint proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, contending that the allegations raised by the wife in the domestic violence proceedings were identical to those raised in matrimonial proceedings, which had already been adjudicated by the Family Court, Lucknow.

It was submitted that the applicant’s divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, had been allowed on the ground of cruelty, while the wife’s proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and return of stridhan had been dismissed. The applicant argued that the wife could not be permitted to re-litigate the same allegations under the Domestic Violence Act and that no subsisting domestic relationship survived after the dissolution of the marriage.

The ex-wife opposed the application, alleging mental and physical cruelty, retention of jewellery and domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. It was submitted that the parties had lived in a domestic relationship and that the remedies under the Domestic Violence Act could not be defeated merely because divorce had subsequently been granted.

Applying these principles, the high court noted that it was not in dispute that the applicant and opposite party no.2 (ex-wife) were married and had shared a household during the marriage. The court held that the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act is expansive and includes a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point in time, lived together in a shared household.

The bench held that the wife could claim protection under the Domestic Violence Act because the statute recognises past domestic relationships and does not confine relief only to women presently residing with the respondent in a shared household.

The court further held: “The wife is eligible to claim protection under the Domestic Violence Act because the definition of domestic relationship as provided under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act includes not only a relationship between two persons who presently live together in a shared household, but also extends to persons who have, at any point of time lived together in a shared household. The judicial separation ordered by a court of law does not put an end to marriage and, hence, the domestic relationship continues between the wife and husband even though they may not be actually living together.”

The court also noted that relief under Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, including monetary relief, child custody, compensation and interim or ex parte orders, are issues that require evidence. It held that such questions cannot be decided at the stage of a quashing petition by conducting a mini-trial.

The bench, therefore, rejected the argument that the entire domestic violence proceedings should be quashed solely because the divorce petition had been decreed in favour of the applicant.

The high court held that the applicant had failed to make out a case for quashing the domestic violence proceedings. With this observation, the court dismissed the application as devoid of merit.