Domestic Violence Act doesn’t provide for maintenance for refusing or neglecting to maintain a wife: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that a wife cannot be awarded maintenance on the grounds of “refusal and neglect” by her husband if no domestic violence is found in a domestic violence case. Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad bench observed that the concept of “refusal and neglect to maintain wife” under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not exist in the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court stated that the tests to prove domestic violence and refusal/neglect to maintain are different and there are no provisions in the Domestic Violence Act to test refusal and neglect to maintain. Therefore, the court concluded that granting maintenance to the wife in a domestic violence case based on refusal and neglect is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an exaggeration.

The Sessions Court’s decision to grant maintenance to the wife in a domestic violence complaint despite no evidence of domestic violence was quashed by the court. The wife had filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act, but the JMFC concluded that her testimony was not in line with her application. Although the wife had filed a complaint under the DV Act, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the JMFC’s decision of no domestic violence. However, the judge treated the case as an application under Section 125 of the CrPC and granted maintenance, as the applicant was found to have refused and neglected to maintain his wife. The applicant then filed a revision application in the High Court, which ruled that there was no provision for maintenance in the DV Act based on refusal and neglect alone and quashed the Sessions Court’s order.

After examining the evidence, the court found that the Judicial Magistrate had scrutinized the wife’s application and rejected it. The court also noted that the DV Act is an additional law that can be applied simultaneously with other laws, such as Section 125 of the CrPC, for the wife to claim relief. In this particular instance, the wife filed a complaint under the DV Act, but maintenance was granted by applying the principle of refusal and neglect to provide maintenance as per Section 125 of the CrPC. As a result, the court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had gone beyond the pleadings and laws involved in the case. The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to grant maintenance to the wife in a domestic violence case based solely on the concept of refusal and neglect to maintain. As a result, the court quashed the Additional Sessions Judge’s judgment and upheld the Judicial Magistrate’s judgment.

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-domestic-violence-act-maintenance-section-125-crpc-neglect-wife-refusal-to-maintain-224944