Denial of economic support to a divorced wife constitutes economic abuse under the DV Act, 2005, and the opposite party no. 2 could seek relief under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revisional application for quashing the criminal proceeding being C. case no. 865 of 2016 dated 20.4.2016 has been initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, DV Act, 2005) now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, at Barasat, North 24 parganas.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 were married according to the Muslim Shriat Law on November 20, 2011 and after marriage they were residing at Rajarhat, New Town. Few days after marriage, the opposite party No.2 started to misbehave with the petitioner without any reason and the petitioner was subjected to insult by the opposite party no.2 every now and then. Subsequently, on February 15, the opposite party with her minor child voluntarily left her matrimonial home and since then she is residing at Baguiati.

3. Ultimately finding no other alternative, on 19.1.2016, the petitioner gave divorce to his wife through Talaknama as per provision of Muslim Personal Law and the same was accepted by opposite party no. 2. Moreover, the due amount towards Iddat has also been sent to opposite party no. 2 after dissolution of marriage. Unfortunately after receiving a copy of the Talaknama, the opposite party no. 2 initiated criminal case by making false and frivolous allegations. Opposite party no. 2 also filed civil suit before the learned 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore being Title suit no. 173 of 2016 praying for a declaration that the dissolution of marriage by Talaq dated 19.1.2016 is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law and has not been made in accordance with Muslim Law along with further prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant from giving effect to such dissolution of marriage through Talaknama dated 19.1.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati submits that the prayer made by opposite party no. 2 for interim stay was not granted by the court in aforesaid Title Suit no. 173 of 2016 and as such the divorce dated 19.10.2016 is still operative between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and furthermore, the opposite party no. 2 voluntarily left her matrimonial home and being a working lady, she cannot claim any amount of monetary relief from the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pati strenuously argued that since the divorce dated 19.10.2016 is still operative, the opposite party no. 2 cannot claim herself as an “aggrieved person” to file an application under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005 praying for any relief and not even interim monetary relief under Section 23 of the DV Act, 2005. Learned Magistrate would not have entertain the said application , as the petitioner being a divorcee lady cannot be categorized as “aggrieved person” and Magistrate should not have passed any interim order on the basis of said application.

6. Accordingly, Mr. Pati submits that continuation of the aforesaid case no. 865 of 2016 filed by opposite party no. 2 claiming herself as aggrieved person, is an abuse of process of law and unfortunately learned Magistrate, is proceeding with such case without deciding the maintainability issue raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid C. case no. 865 of 2016 dated 20.4.2016.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Mr. Ghosh argued that being aggrieved by the alleged divorce through Talaknama, she has filed title suit no. 173 of 2016 and until and unless the said proceeding is concluded against the opposite party no 2, it cannot be said that no domestic relationship exists in between the parties or that their matrimonial tie has been dissolved and for which she cannot be categorized as aggrieved person.

8. On perusal of written complaint under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for passing various orders under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the D.V. Act, 2005 and also prayed for