No relief for wife under Domestic Violence Act, unless in 'relationship': High Court

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that a wife can file an application for specific reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act only while remaining in a domestic relationship. However, if living separately from husband for uite some time, she cannot be said to be in domestic relationship and, therefore, cannot file such application under the Act, !ustice "oshan Dalvi ruled while re#ecting a petition filed by a woman who left her husband and two children in the $% and returned to India. &he High Court also upheld the order of a lower court which had ruled that the petitioner's application under (rotection of )omen from Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable. *&he application under Domestic Violence Act could be filed when the marriage union subsisted. &hat having come to an end and long after the physical relationship came to an end, she having returned to India, she cannot be ta+en to be living in any domestic relationship in India,* the #udge observed in a recent order. &he petitioner married on ,ay -, ./// and lived with her husband in the $%. &hey had two issues. %he returned to India on 0ebruary .., 122/ and, a year later, filed an application under Domestic Violence Act in a sessions Court. &he High Court upheld the ruling of the sessions court that no domestic relationship e3isted between the husband and wife when she filed the petition see+ing redress under the Act. A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because of any domestic violence, can file an application for domestic violence that too+ place whilst she lived in that relationship, the High Court said. However, such application is re uired to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the DV Act for the reliefs under the Act, it said. *In this case, the wife returned to India and stayed in the country for one year leaving behind her husband and two children in $%A. &hus she cannot be said to be in domestic relationship with her husband and family in India,* the court ruled and re#ected the petition. ,umbai, 0ri ,ar .4 12.5, .674. hrs ,arch .47 In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that a wife can file an application for specific reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act only while remaining in a domestic relationship. However, if living separately from husband for uite some time, she cannot be said to be in domestic relationship and, therefore, cannot file such application under the Act, !ustice "oshan Dalvi ruled while re#ecting a petition filed by a woman who left her husband and two children in the $% and returned to India. &he High Court also upheld the order of a lower court which had ruled that the petitioner's application under (rotection of )omen from Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable. *&he application under Domestic Violence Act could be filed when the marriage union subsisted. &hat having come to an end and long after the physical relationship came to an end, she having returned to India, she cannot be ta+en to be living in any domestic relationship in India,* the #udge observed in a recent order.

&he petitioner married on ,ay -, ./// and lived with her husband in the $%. &hey had two issues. %he returned to India on 0ebruary .., 122/ and, a year later, filed an application under Domestic Violence Act in a sessions Court. &he High Court upheld the ruling of the sessions court that no domestic relationship e3isted between the husband and wife when she filed the petition see+ing redress under the Act. A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because of any domestic violence, can file an application for domestic violence that too+ place whilst she lived in that relationship, the High Court said. However, such application is re uired to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the DV Act for the reliefs under the Act, it said. *In this case, the wife returned to India and stayed in the country for one year leaving behind her husband and two children in $%A. &hus she cannot be said to be in domestic relationship with her husband and family in India,* the court ruled and re#ected the petition. 888888(&I 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888