Skip to main content

Sharing household not necessary at the time of filing DV complaint

The High Court of Orissa on Tuesday held that for maintaining proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not necessary for the woman to have lived in a shared household with the accused at the time of making an application to the Magistrate. Justice S.K. Sahoo observed, “For subjecting a woman to any act of domestic violence as defined under section 3 of the P.W.D.V. Act and maintaining an application under section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act, it is not necessary that the woman concerned must be living with the respondent under one roof or in a shared household at the time of presenting the application to the Magistrate.” The Court was hearing a challenge to an order passed in July this year by the Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, upholding the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by the wife under the DV Act. The maintainability of the proceedings were challenged, among other things, on the ground that there existed no “domestic relationship” between the couple for almost 4 years before the filing of the proceedings under the Act. The complainant-wife had submitted that the expression, “who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household” as per Section 2(f) of the Act shows that subsisting relationship between the parties i.e., the aggrieved person and a respondent is not a sine qua non for filing an application for seeking relief under Section 12 of the Act. The Court agreed with the submissions made by the complainant-wife, and upheld the maintainability of the application, observing, “When the divorce proceeding is subjudiced between the parties and there is no severance of status between them, merely because they are living at separate places since 2012, since it is the case of the opposite party that the petitioner was regularly coming to the rented house of the opposite party at Bhubaneswar and subjecting her to physical and mental torture, it can very well be said that the legal relationship between husband and wife continues and it has not been snapped and it is very much present and alive.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/not-necessary-for-woman-to-share-household-with-accused-at-the-time-of-making-an-application-under-dv-act-orissa-hc/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
22 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
11 comments
Read more

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...
Post a Comment
Read more