Woman Entitled To Maintenance Even After Divorce Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court said that the definition of the term 'domestic relationship' suggests a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point, lived together in a shared household.

At first the woman had sought maintenance under the DV Act which was rejected by the family court. ( Image Source :Representational Image/Getty )

New Delhi: The Bombay High Court has upheld an order that says a woman is entitled to maintenance under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) even after divorce. It came after the court upheld a May 2021 order passed by a sessions court directing a man, a police officer, to pay maintenance of Rs 6,000 to his divorced wife per month.

A single bench of Justice R G Avachat passed the order on January 24 for a plea filed by the wife. According to a report by PTI, the couple who married in May 2013 faced matrimonial disputes and started living separately in July 2013. They later got divorced.

The woman had sought maintenance under the DV Act which was rejected by the family court. She then approached the sessions court which in 2021 allowed her plea. The husband had challenged the decision saying that as they did not have any marital relationship anymore, he is not entitled to provide any relief.

However, the high court said that the definition of the term 'domestic relationship' suggests a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point in time (mostly in the past), lived together in a shared household, when they were related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage. Therefore, the husband was under obligation to provide relief to his wife.

"The petitioner being husband was under statutory obligation to make provisions of maintenance of his wife. Since he failed to make such provision, the respondent/wife had no option but to file an application under the DV Act,” the court said, as per PTI.

The court also added that the man was “fortunate” that he was directed to pay only a sum of Rs 6,000 per month when he was in police service and was drawing a salary of more than Rs 25,000 per month.