Bipin VS Meera D. S.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUNIL THOMAS
Bipin – Appellant
Versus
Meera D. S. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri. M. Ramaswamy Pillai and Smt. Preethy R. Nair, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 1 and 2:Sri. Shajin S. Hameed, Advocate and Smt Bindu Gopinath, Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Sunil Thomas, J.—The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether subsistence of the matrimonial relationship is the sine-qua-non for seeking reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V Act’ for brevity, hereinafter). To be more precise, whether a legally divorced wife can seek reliefs under the D.V Act.

2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case is as follows. The petitioner in the Crl.M.C had married the first respondent in 2011. Second respondent child was born to them. The matrimonial relationship got strained thereafter and hence the spouses moved family court with a joint petition for divorce invoking section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. After compliance of statutory formalities, divorce was granted by the Family Court in May 2015. Marriage stood dissolved with effect from the date of judgment. Thereafter in August 2015, respondents 1 and 2 filed the present application before the magistrate court seeking reliefs under sections 18, and 20 of the D.V. Act. The reliefs sought were a protection order against domestic violence, return of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the first respondent misapprop