Published on June 24, 2022 at 14:00 IST
The Bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee has held that when the husband denies supporting his wife and minor child economically such denial is an economic abuse under section 3 of Domestic Violence Act irrespective of wife lives in shared household or anywhere else.
The Petitioner is a husband who filed a plea seeking quashing of an application filed under section 12 of Domestic violence Act.
The Petitioner married to his wife in 2011 according to the Shariat Law but the behavior of wife became unreasonable and she left the matrimonial house in 2012.
In 2016 both got divorced according to the Muslim Law and at that time wife accepted the divorce and signed the Talaknama.
When wife got the copy of Talaknama she moved before Court alleging that the divorce was not according to the Muslim Personal Law and so it should be annulled and also to put permanent stay on dissolving the marriage on the basis of Talaknama.
Court observed that opposite party had prayed to the Court to frame charges under section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of Domestic Violence Act and sought interim monetary relief under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act.
The Court observed that economic abuse constitute on a day to day basis even after getting divorce as wife need sums to raise their minor son.
The Court dismissed the contention that application under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act is barred by limitation according to section 468 of CrPC by referring the Supreme Court judgment of Kmatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan and pointed out that limitation is for the offences committed under Domestic Violence but not for the application under section 12.
The Court refused to quash the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner due to application under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act
The Court held “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and that prayer for the cancellation of the Talak is still sub- judice and not yet finalized and also considering the fact that under section 3 of DV Act 2005 “domestic violence” includes emotional abuse as well as economic abuse it can hardly be said at this stage that even though both the parties are residing separately the opposite party number 2 cannot be categorised as aggrieved person.