All the judgments shared by honorable judge are related with divorce cases, where

it was held that DV act can be filed by divorced wife, this does not mean that she is
entitled for maintenance. DV act can be invoked for domestic relationship but
simply by invoking DV act does not mean and person is entitled for maintenance. As
applicability of DV act and entitlement of maintenance are two different things.

1 bharti naik vs ravi ramnath halamkar

A similar question arose before the Bombay High Court. A Single Judge of Goa
Bench of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Bharati Naik v. Ravi Ramnath Halarnkar
and another, 2011 Crl. Law Journal 3572 has held as follows : "8. In my view, the
definition of the "aggrieved person" and the "Respondent" are the defining
definitions in so far as the issue that arises for consideration in the present petition
is concerned. The definition of "aggrieved person" postulates a woman who is, or
"has been" in a domestic relationship with the Respondent and the Respondent
means any adult male person who is, or "has been" in a domestic relationship with
the aggrieved person. Since a domestic relationship is a sine qua non for invoking
the provisions of the said Act. Section 2(f) also becomes material, Section 2(f) as
can be seen from a reading of the said provision means a domestic relationship
between two persons who live or "have", at any point of time, lived together in a
shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or Orissa High Court : Cuttack vs
Sumitra Panda ... Opposite Party on 6 January, 2014 Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/177999348/ 3 are family members living together as a
joint family. Therefore, the aforesaid three definitions take in their sweep even a
past relationship as the words "has been" or "have lived" have been used in the said
definitions. The said words therefore have been used purposefully as the said Act
has been enacted to protect a woman from domestic violence and, therefore, there
cannot be any fetter which can come in the way by interpreting the provisions in a
manner to mean that unless the domestic relationship continues on the date of the
application, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. The words "has been" and
the words "have lived" have been used for the purpose of showing the past
relationship or experience between the concerned parties. To interpret the said
provisions so as to mean that only subsisting domestic relationship are covered
would result in turning the provisions of the said Act otiose. As is well settled by the
judgments of the Apex Court in cases of beneficent Legislations, an interpretation
which furthers its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object
and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Reference could be made to the judgment of
the Apex Court reported in (2009) 14 SCC 546: (AIR 2010 SC 1253: 2010 Lab IC
1104) the matter of Union of India v. De- vendra Kumar Pant and others. Apart from
that a literal construction of the provisions would show that even if the woman was
in the past in a relationship she would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the
said Act. The words "has been" or "have lived" appearing in the definitions are plain
and clear and therefore effect would have to be given to them. In the instant case,
the petitioner who is the aggrieved person and the Respondent no.1 had lived
together in the shared household when they were related by marriage. The

petitioner though divorced continued to stay in the shared household till she was
allegedly forcefully evicted by the Respondent no.1, she would therefore be entitled
to invoke the provisions of the said Act, as the petitioner and the Respondent no.1
are squarely covered by the provisions of the said Act."

2) jovita olga vs rajan maria : same judgment even divorce lady can filed a dv act.

3) m muruganandam vs m megala this judgement says if allegations are not

vague then dv proceedings cannot be quashed. This does not talks about any
maintenance.
4) priya vs shibu 2008:The interesting question which is raised in this revision is as
to whether a divorced wife is entitled to file a petition under Section 12(1) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
`the Act') claiming return of dowry and ornaments and also for
maintenance payable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
5) Rajeev kumar singh vs state and up: same question divorced wife can invoke dv
act since petitioner says divorced wife is not entitled to file dv act.
It is made clear that this Court has only expressed its opinion on the maintainability
of the
application under Section 12 of the Act at the instance of a divorced woman against
her husband as
also on the justification of the interim protection order but has not expressed any
opinion on the
merits of the claim of either party, which shall be dealt with by the court below,
independent of any
observation made by this Court in this order, on the basis of the evidence led before
it by the parties.

6) sunil kumar vs sumitra panda

15. As far as the second question is concerned, it is admitted that the
maintainability of the application before the Magistrate in view of the provision of
sub-section 26 of the Act has not been raised before the learned Magistrate or
before the learned Sessions Judge. So, this Court refrains from taking into
consideration any point not agitated before the original and appellate court. Hence,
no decision is rendered on the same. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning,
this Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed

7) juveria abdul majid patni vs atif Iqbal mansoori: In this case fir was filed before
the divorce.

32) Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court failed to notice the aforesaid
provisions of the Act and the fact that the FIR was lodged much prior to the alleged
divorce between the parties and erred in holding that the petition Under Section 12
was not maintainable.
33. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 23rd
January, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
4250 of 2012, the order dated 3rd November, 2012 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Mumbai and uphold the order dated 4th February, 2012 passed by
the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai. The 1st
Respondent is directed to pay the amount, if not yet paid, in accordance with order
passed by the Magistrate. The Magistrate will now proceed with the matter and
finally dispose of the petition Under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act after
going through the report and hearing the parties. 34. The appeal is allowed with
aforesaid observations and directions.

8) sanjay Bhardwaj and anr vs state and anr: In this case maintenance is denied by
high court of delhi:

A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not
create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance. It only enables
the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the rights available under
existing laws. While, the Act specifies the duties and functions of protection officer,
police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility providers and duties of
Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband or the duties of wife.
Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as
per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to the wife.
Under prevalent laws i.e. Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, Hindu Marriage Act,
Section 125 Cr.P.C - a husband is supposed to maintain his un-earning spouse out of
the income which he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife,
living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court
cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to
the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and
almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully
employed before marriage. If the husband was BSc. and Masters in Marketing
Management from Pondicherry University, the wife was MA (English) & MBA. If the
husband was working as a Manager abroad, the wife with MBA degree was also

working in an MNC in India. Under these circumstances, fixing of maintenance by

the Court without there being even a prima facie proof of the husband being
employed in India and with clear proof of the fact that the passport of the husband
was seized, he was not permitted to leave country, (the bail was given with a
condition that he shall keep visiting Investigating Officer as and when called) is
contrary to law and not warranted under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal
treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed
husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an
unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal
footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is
not employed. As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a
person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the
parents and maintain wife. The parents had done their duty of educating them and
now they cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up
and must take care of themselves.
6. It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every
failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence. Marriages do fail
for various other reasons. The difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are
rarely admitted in Courts. Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in
marriages and in averments made before the Courts.
7. I therefore find that the order dated 16th January, 2008 passed by the learned
MM and order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge fixing maintenance without there being any prima facie proof of the husband
being employed are not tenable under Domestic Violence Act. The petition is
allowed. The orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate and learned Additional
Sessions Judge are hereby set aside.