Parties can seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act for incidents occurring during a domestic relationship, despite subsequent divorce; the limitation for claims involving continuing offences applies, allowing actions on economic abuse claims.

JUDGMENT

Date : 23-03-2018

(1) This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed praying for quashing the proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act for short) in Misc. Case No. 50M/2014 pending in the Court of the learned Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), No. 1, Kamrup, seeking relief under Section 18 , 19 and 20 of the Act.

(2) The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent No. 2 and petitioner were married in the month of May, 1994 as per Karbi rites and customs. They could not pull on well together, consequently, the marital boat moved into rough weather and ultimately the relationship broke down resulting in separation in the year 2010. There was a decree of divorce passed on 23.02.2011 by the Court of Dima Hasao Autonomous Council Court in T.S. No. 2/2011. The said decree of divorce was challenged by the respondent No. 2 in appeal. However, later on, the appeal was withdrawn and the decree of divorce attained finality.

(3) The petitioner was residing at Pretoria in South Africa in connection with his employment, where he received an e-mail, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the SDJM, Kamrup (M) in connection with Misc. Case No. 50M/2014, instituted by the respondent No. 2. It was alleged in the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, that in the month of February, 2000, the petitioner physically assaulted the respondent. In the month of June, 2000, there was a quarrel and the petitioner hit the respondent, for which she had to come back to India for treatment and rest. She was again assaulted by the petitioner in the month of August, 2001. It was further stated that there was quarrel between the husband and wife in the month of December, 2007, at night and in course of such quarrel, the petitioner dragged the respondent by holding her hair and she was also dealt with kicks and blows in presence of her mother and elder sister. In the month of September, 2008, there was argument between them and petitioner assaulted her. In the month of September, 2010, the petitioner left for Delhi in connection with his official work and did not return home to live together with the respondent No. 2, where they were living. It was further stated that the respondent was facing financial hardship and therefore filed the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Learned Magistrate passed an ex-parte order granting interim maintenance in favour of the respondent @ Rs. 20,000/- and another Rs. 5,000/- for educational expenses of the child per month.

(4) Being aggrieved by the order passed in Misc. Case under the D.V. Act, the petitioner filed the instant petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 50M/2014.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Das, submits that because of the decree of divorce passed by competent court, there was no ‘domestic relationship’ between the parties and they were living separately since 2010 and as such, the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was not maintainable. Further contention of the learned counsel was that the alleged domestic violence took place long back in the year 2008 or before, and the petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was filed after about six years, that too after dissolution of marriage by divorce, and as such, the petition was not maintainable on that count too. To buttress the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Inder Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 12 SCC 588.

(6) Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. H.S. Kalsi placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori reported in (2014) 10 SCC 736 submits that once the domestic violence is committed during subsistence of ‘domestic relationship’ subsequent decree of divorce wi