ORDER

1. The appellant before us would have an efficacious remedy to seek maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to “DVC Act, 2005”) even assuming that she is not the legally wedded wife and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is because of the provisions contained in Section 3(a) of the DVC Act, 2005 which defines the term “domestic violence” in the following terms:

“3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it-

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

................................

...............................”

2. What would be significant to note is that economic abuse also constitutes domestic violence and economic abuse has been defined by Explanation I(iv) to Section 3 of the DVC Act, 2005 to mean:

“(iv)