Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Sandipkumar C. More, J.
Umakant Havgirao Bondre - Applicants
Versus
Sakshi @ Sonali W/o. Suraj Bondre - Respondents
Criminal Revision Application No. 59 Of 2018 with Criminal Application No. 2716 Of 2021
Decided On : 30-09-2022
The dispute arose between the parents of respondent No.2 and in-laws of respondent No.1 Sakshi, who left the shared household and filed a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). The court analyzed the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Judicial Magistrate, and the subsequent events including the dissolution of marriage between Sakshi and her husband. The main issue was whether a divorced wife can claim residence order under the D.V. Act. The court found that a divorced wife cannot claim residence order or enforce an earlier residence order after leaving the shared household and subsequent divorce. The court allowed the applications and set aside the impugned orders, allowing Sakshi to seek alternative remedy for claiming rent for her accommodation from her husband.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and conclusions are as follows:
A divorced woman cannot claim a residence order or enforce an earlier residence order under the Domestic Violence Act after her marriage has been legally dissolved and she has left the shared household prior to the divorce (!) (!) (!) .
The right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act is specifically conferred only to women who are in a domestic relationship, i.e., while the marriage subsists. Once the marriage is legally dissolved, the woman generally loses the right to reside in the shared household unless she is still in possession of it at the time of the order (!) (!) (!) .
Even if a woman was residing in the shared household at the time of the order, if she has separated from her spouse long before the divorce decree, she cannot invoke the residence order as a right to continue residing there after the marriage has been dissolved (!) (!) (!) .
The orders under the Domestic Violence Act granting residence rights are subject to change if there are changed circumstances, such as the dissolution of marriage. Orders directing the respondent to provide accommodation in the shared household are not sustainable once the marriage is legally dissolved and the woman has left the shared household long prior to the divorce (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the primary consideration is whether the woman is still in a domestic relationship with the respondent at the time of the order. If the marriage has ended and she has been separated for a significant period, she cannot claim the benefit of the residence order based on her previous status (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the woman, even if she is a divorced wife, may seek alternative remedies such as claiming rent for her accommodation from her former spouse, rather than enforcing a residence order that is no longer applicable (!) .
In summary, the legal position articulated in this judgment is that a divorced woman who has been separated from her husband for a considerable period and especially after the marriage has been legally dissolved cannot claim or enforce a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act. The Orders passed in her favor under the Act are not applicable once the marriage has been legally terminated and she has left the shared household prior to the divorce.
JUDGMENT :
1. The applicants in both these proceedings are the parents of respondent No.2 Suraj Umakant Bondre and in-laws of respondent No.1 Sakshi @ Sonali Suraj Bondre (hereinafter referred to as “Sakshi”). The marriage of respondents was solemnized on 10.06.2015, however, dispute arose between them and from 17.04.2016 respondent No.1 Sakshi started residing at her maternal house. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.59 of 2018 have challenged order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir whereby Sakshi was permitted to occupy the shared household bearing No. 3-1- 862/1/3-1-930 which is admittedly standing in the name of present applicant No.1 Umakant Bondre. The applicants have also challenged the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.3), Udgir on 23.10.2021 in Misc. Civil Application No. 91/2017 below exh.39 whereby the learned Magistrate directed the present applicants and her husband i.e. present respondent No.2 to give possession of one room on the ground floor with facility of attached WC, toilet and electricity from the aforesaid shared household.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicants in both these applications submitted that after marriage of present respondents, Sakshi used to harass her husband as well as the applicants by giving threats of committing suicide and ultimately left the aforesaid shared household willingly on 17.04.2016 and started residing at her matrimonial house by declining the company of her husband and the applicants. He further submits that with a view to harass the applicants and her husband, Sakshi fled Criminal Misc. Application No. 97/2017 against the applicants and her husband in the Court of learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short, “D.V. Act”). The learned Magistrate in the said application granted interim alimony of Rs. 2,000/- per month to Sakshi and also granted an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month for her residential accommodation from her husband under the order dated 09.11.2017. The learned Counsel for the applicants then submitted that the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2017 was challenged by Sakshi before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir by way of Criminal Appeal No. 15/2017 and in the said appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 12.02.2018, modified the earlier order and instead of providing monthly amount of Rs. 1500/- to Sakshi for her residential purpose, he granted permission to Sakshi to occupy the aforesaid shared household with immediate effect. Learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that in the mean time and after Sakshi started residing in the shared household, there was settlement between Sakshi and her husband i.e. respondent No.2 Suraj and accordingly Sakshi went for cohabitation with her husband to Pune on 11.06.2018. However, thereafter also Sakshi continued her rude behaviour as earlier and left the house of Pune willingly and started residing with her parents at maternal house.
3. Further, according to learned Counsel for the applicants, a divorce petition bearing HMP No. 92/2016 fled by husband of Sakshi against her was also pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udgir and vide order dated 10.07.2018 passed in the said marriage petition, the marriage between Sakshi and her husband was dissolved. It is further pointed out that despite dissolution of marriage, Sakshi, with intention to harass the applicants, fled application below Exh.39 in the pending proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act i.e. Criminal Misc. Application NO. 91/2017 and prayed for execution of earlier order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2017 for providing her accommodation in the shared household. The said application was opposed by the present applicants and also by the husband of Sakshi on the ground that
A divorced wife cannot claim residence order or enforce an earlier residence order under the Domestic Violence Act after leaving the shared household and subsequent divorce.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divorced woman is entitled to the right of residence under S.17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 only if she is i....
A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband.
Strict proof of marriage is not required to establish a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act, allowing for claims based on cohabitation and the relationship's nature.
Domestic violence- Trial Court shall before passing a decree and dispossession on the wife ensuring in view of the subsisting rights of the daughter-in-law under the DV Act to provide with an additi....
Point of Law : Right of residence under Section 19 of DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law a....
The right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is not indefeasible in property exclusively owned by in-laws, and alternative accommodation is permissible when ownersh....
Point of Law : Right of residence under Section 19 of DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
