Latest news with #ProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct
Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bombay HC stays interim order in domestic violence case, subject to ex-minister depositing 50% maintenance amount
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on a trial court order that directed a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and former minister to pay monthly interim maintenance to his estranged partner in a domestic violence case. However, the high court said that the stay is subject to his depositing the 50 per cent amount awarded in favour of the estranged partner in the court. The high court will hear the leader's plea after eight weeks. A single-judge bench of Justice Manjusha A Deshpande was hearing the NCP leader's plea, argued through advocates Shardul Singh and Sayali Sawant, that challenged an April 5 sessions court order that rejected his appeal against an interim order by a magistrate directing him to pay Rs 1.25 lakh to his estranged partner and Rs 75, 000 to their daughter. On February 4, a magistrate court in Bandra had partly allowed the woman's plea and ordered interim maintenance. The magistrate had observed that there was a prima facie proof of domestic violence against the former minister. However, the ex-minister approached the sessions court, challenging the magistrate's order. He claimed that he had never married the woman, and as the domestic relationship between them had ceased to exist, she could not file a plea under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The sessions court, while rejecting the leader's appeal, had noted that he and his estranged partner and their daughter 'are entitled for the same lifestyle which is being enjoyed by the appellant. Even if it is presumed that respondent (estranged partner) is earning, she is also entitled for maintenance to maintain their lifestyle as of the appellant (NCP leader)'. Aggrieved by the same, the NCP leader approached the high court, claiming that documents relied upon by the respondent woman were 'fabricated and forged', and he had filed a police complaint regarding the same, and therefore the trial court order based on the same was 'erroneous'. The petitioner further claimed that the woman had a substantial income, which is reflected in her earlier election affidavit, which the trial court failed to consider. He added that he was not contesting the maintenance amount granted in favour of the daughter.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
In-laws told to provide woman accommodation or pay her rent
New Delhi: Directing the in-laws of a woman to either arrange accommodation for her or pay the rent for her separate stay, a court has observed that an aggrieved person under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has the right to reside in the shared household even in the absence of actual residence in it. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the court of additional sessions judge Sharad Gupta said in his June 6 order that a woman couldn't be excluded from the shared household even if she didn't actually reside there. The petitioner, Shalini Chauhan, alleged that after her marriage in 2021 in Faridabad, she was subjected to domestic violence, following which she decided to live separately. The court was hearing her appeal against an order of a magisterial court in Sept 2023, which did not issue directions on the issue of accommodation. Vineet Chauhan, her husband who is absconding, didn't give interim maintenance to her since Jan 2023. The appellant, through her advocate Archana Sharma, said she was facing financial difficulties as her husband had filed a plea claiming he wasn't involved in any violence and not liable to pay maintenance. The judge directed the father and brother of the husband to either permit the woman to reside in the matrimonial home or arrange a separate rented premises and pay Rs 7,000 per month for rent for six months from the date of the order or until the final disposal of the complaint of the appellant under PWDV Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The court observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the relationship between the husband and his family members was peaceful or that he was colluding with them. "Rather, as per record, the respondent no. 1 has abandoned his parents as well as his wife. Thus, considering that the appellant was living in the matrimonial home prior to the breakdown of relationships, the respondents would have to provide some shelter or rent to the appellant for a reasonable period of time," the judge said.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
Last Updated: The Supreme Court observed that the fact that the husband is not earning does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife The Supreme Court has said that the objective of granting permanent alimony is to ensure that, in a marriage that does not survive and has one of the two spouses dependent on the other, such a spouse is not left without any source of support. At the same time, it is clear that the grant of permanent alimony cannot be a method of punishing the spouse who is asked to pay the said amount. A judicious balance has to be struck between the interests of both parties, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra said. The court here enhanced the alimony awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to an appellant wife from Rs one lakh to Rs five lakh. The High Court, by its judgement and order of June 2, 2022, confirmed the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband, as originally granted by the Family Court, Faridabad, on December 14, 2018. The High Court further ordered that the respondent-husband would pay the appellant-wife a sum of Rs one lakh as alimony. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on November 9, 2008. Soon thereafter, it was alleged that harassment of the former began at the hands of the latter's family. This culminated, according to the appellant-wife, with her being turned away from her matrimonial home on January 5, 2011, after being physically assaulted. A few months thereafter, litigation began inter se the parties in one form or another. The respondent-husband at first filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955; the appellant-wife thereafter filed an FIR on November 15, 2011, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Prior thereto, she also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on May 26, 2011. The divorce proceedings were initiated by the respondent-husband on March 25, 2013. In its pendency, protracted and acrimonious litigation ensued between the parties. In the proceedings under the DV Act, the concerned court awarded Rs 2,000 per month to the appellant-wife. On September 17, 2016, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which eventually resulted in an order in her favour granting Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance on September 5, 2019. The order of Rs 2,000 per month maintenance in the DV Act proceedings was also appealed against and was enhanced to Rs 5,000 per month by an order on January 20, 2018. The Additional Principal Family Judge, Faridabad, passed the judgment and decree on December 14, 2018, dissolving the marriage. The High Court confirmed the grant of dissolution of marriage and awarded Rs one lakh alimony to the appellant wife. Examining the matter limited to the quantum of alimony, the bench cited Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain (2025), which, upon considering a host of pronouncements, culled out a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court must consider in granting permanent alimony, including status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, individual qualifications and employment status, independent income and assets, standard of life enjoyed by the wife, etc. The court also referred to Rajnesh Vs Neha, in which the Supreme Court observed that in computing permanent alimony, the fact that the husband is not earning (as the respondent-husband has submitted in his counter affidavit) does not absolve him of the obligation to maintain his wife. It has also been held that if the wife has been awarded maintenance in any other proceeding, she must disclose the same, and a set-off must take place. Having considered the law, the bench said, 'We are of the view that the High Court's determination of permanent alimony at Rs one lakh is insufficient. As such, in the attending facts and circumstances of this case, and without interfering with the final conclusion reached by both the Family Court and the High Court regarding the grant of divorce, we enhance the permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant wife by a sum of Rs four lakhs, bringing the total thereof to Rs five lakh." The court clarified that this would be a full and final settlement of all claims. It also said the amount would be payable in 10 equal instalments, with the final instalment being payable in the month of March 2026. The bench further held that the effect of this order would be that all other proceedings regarding maintenance stand subsumed by this payment. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 18, 2025, 04:15 IST News india 'Judicial Balance To Be Struck In Grant Of Alimony': SC Raises Settlement Amount From Rs 1 L To Rs 5 L
Time of India
12-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Love without labels, laws without clarity: Women in India's grey zone
Ms. Trisha Shreyashi is a lawyer and columnist. She is a member of the Advisory Council of Harvard Business Review and the Academic Panel of the Cambridge University Press. Trisha has a ringside view of business, policies, law and the untold spaces in between. LESS ... MORE (Women navigating the new era relationships find themselves in a perilous grey zone, where societal stigma meets ambiguous medieval laws, offering little protection against exploitation or abuse. As the country strides into modernity, its outdated legal labyrinth fails to keep pace, leaving women vulnerable in casual and non-traditional relationships. Bridging this gap is not just about fairness—it's about evolving India's justice system to honour the complexities of love, identity, and freedom in an increasingly progressive society.) Modern relationships in India have evolved significantly in recent years, driven by changing societal norms, urbanization, and increasing exposure to global cultures. Younger generations, especially in urban areas, are increasingly embracing casual relationships, live-in arrangements, and other non-traditional partnerships as reflections of their autonomy and changing attitudes toward intimacy. However, India's legal framework, deeply rooted in traditional notions of marriage, struggles to address the complexities of these modern relationships. This creates a precarious situation for women, as the existing laws offer limited and ambiguous protections, leaving them vulnerable in various ways. Casual and non-traditional relationships symbolize a shift towards individual freedom, fueled by education, global media influence, and access to digital platforms such as dating apps. While these arrangements are celebrated for their flexibility and freedom, they often face societal stigma, particularly in conservative parts of the country. More significantly, these relationships lack the legal recognition and rights that traditional marriages confer, leaving participants—especially women—without reliable recourse in cases of disputes, abuse, or exploitation. It's complicated': Women, relationships, and the Indian legal circus Several legal provisions in India offer some degree of protection for women in non-traditional relationships, though their application is often limited. For instance, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), extends certain rights to women in relationships 'in the nature of marriage.' These include the right to reside in a shared household, protection orders against abusive behaviour, and claims for monetary relief. However, purely casual relationships are generally excluded from such protections unless they resemble marriage closely. Similarly, laws addressing breaches of promises to marry, such as those under Sections 417, 420, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), provide some recourse but are often contingent on the relationship's context. Women can also seek custody and maintenance for children born from such relationships, as governed by laws like the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Despite these provisions, several loopholes in the legal framework persist, exposing significant vulnerabilities. One major issue is the ambiguity in defining relationships 'in the nature of marriage,' which leads to inconsistent interpretations by courts. Moreover, women in casual or live-in relationships lack property rights or adequate avenues for claiming maintenance. In cases involving children, proving paternity can become contentious, complicating custody and inheritance disputes. Cyber and privacy concerns also loom large, as laws addressing online harassment are often slow to enforce, exacerbating the harm caused by the misuse of intimate content. Additionally, non-physical harm, such as emotional abuse like cheating, dishonesty, adultery, abandonment and destitution, remains inadequately addressed under existing laws. India can draw inspiration from nations like Australia, New-Zealand, Canada, Sweden and South Africa where de-facto relationships, common law partnerships and cohabitation are conferred legal recognition and some relative degree of protection. Cohabitation and confusion: Modern relationships meet old-school laws The existing legal framework also reflects biases stemming from traditional mindsets, both within law enforcement and the judiciary. These biases discourage women from pursuing justice, particularly in cases involving non-traditional relationships like live-in relationships or long term relationships. It needs no iteration how such events irrationally affect a woman's social and financial standing and eventually her mental health. Furthermore, LGBTQ+ relationships receive minimal recognition under the current laws, leaving women in same-sex partnerships with limited legal recourse for addressing abuse or exploitation. To address these gaps, the legal system must evolve to keep pace with societal changes. Clarifying definitions, such as relationships 'in the nature of marriage,' would help establish consistent legal standards. Cyber protections should be strengthened with expedited procedures and stricter penalties for revenge actions. Emotional and psychological abuse should also be explicitly addressed in laws governing relationships. Protections must be extended to LGBTQ+ relationships and purely casual partnerships, acknowledging the diversity of modern relationships. Awareness campaigns and accessible legal aid services can empower women to seek justice, while judicial and law enforcement sensitization can promote fairness in handling such cases. From casual dates to court dates, it has become a menace for women to navigate the Indian legal labyrinth which is why men can just walk over women, labelling it as 'no labels'. Modern relationships in India symbolize a shift toward greater individuality, yet the legal framework remains largely unprepared to support these changes. By addressing the loopholes in existing laws and fostering a more inclusive and adaptive legal system, India can ensure fairness and security for women in all types of relationships. As the nation continues to modernize, its legal institutions must evolve to reflect the realities of contemporary partnerships. (Trisha Shreyashi is a lawyer and columnist. She is also a member of the Academic Panel, Cambridge University Press.) Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
11-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Earning, divorced wife not to pay for child's maintenance; husband has to bear entire expense, rules Delhi High court
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills How did this case start? July 7, 2014: A Delhi based person married a lady who is employed as a stenographer in court. The marriage between them happened following all Hindu rites and ceremonies. From this marriage two children, a son and a daughter, were born in 2015 and 2019 respectively. A Delhi based person married a lady who is employed as a stenographer in court. The marriage between them happened following all Hindu rites and ceremonies. From this marriage two children, a son and a daughter, were born in 2015 and 2019 respectively. June 2021: She left her husband and has been living separately since then. She left her husband and has been living separately since then. April 2022: She filed a complaint under Section 12 and Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and his family members. Section 23 is used when a spouse who is not divorced yet and seeks payment of interim maintenance money. She filed a complaint under Section 12 and Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and his family members. Section 23 is used when a spouse who is not divorced yet and seeks payment of interim maintenance money. August 17, 2023: The lower court refused to grant any maintenance money to the wife but ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month in favour of both their children's maintenance. Delhi High Court refers to this Supreme Court judgement which said usually fathers have to bear expenses of children unless the mother is earning sufficiently The Supreme Court has held that monetary relief under Section 20(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, granted in favour of the aggrieved woman or the children, must be adequate, fair and reasonable. It was also held that the living expenses of a child must include not just food, clothing, residence, medical and educational costs, but also reasonable expenses for extra-curricular or coaching classes; and that ordinarily, the father should bear the educational expenses of the children, unless the mother is earning sufficiently, in which case the costs may be shared proportionately. In the present case, a significant aspect that merits attention is that the respondent (Wife), who is admittedly employed in the District Court—a role that demands punctuality, mental acuity, and undivided focus—has been consistently balancing her professional responsibilities with the demands of her personal life. While it was contended by her counsel that she faces multifaceted challenges as a "single parent," this Court is of the view that such terminology requires a nuanced understanding. A custodial parent, though performing parental responsibilities independently, does not live a solitary existence; rather, he or she forms a familial unit with the children in their care. The presence of children, and the responsibilities that accompany their upbringing, confer upon such an individual the character of a family, not of a person leading a singular or isolated life The maintenance is not meant to belittle the non-custodial parent, nor is it a measure of punishment. Similarly, the custodial parent should not be viewed as someone seeking charity or alms. Maintenance is not a favour; it is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported. This Court is equally cognizant of the fact that maintenance must not result in unfair financial burden on the father, especially when the wife is earning and has been awarded no separate maintenance for herself. Delhi High Court answers why wife is not required to pay equal share of maintenance for their children To deal with the argument that the respondent (wife) herein is working and is thus financially and otherwise capable and empowered to not only take care of the children and her career but also, therefore, not seek maintenance, this Court is of the view that even in cases where a father has custody of young and minor children, the challenges he faces are, in essence, not dissimilar to those encountered by a mother in a comparable situation. While societal perception may traditionally lean towards the belief that a father's role is rendered more arduous due to professional commitments and prevailing gender expectations, the same logic must equally apply to working mothers, who often navigate identical—if not heightened— burdens. In the present case, what stands out is that the respondent – a woman employed in a demanding position that requires sustained concentration, discipline, and extended working hours—is not seeking maintenance for herself but solely for the children born out of the wedlock. This, despite the fact that the petitioner earns nearly twice her income. The respondent continues to shoulder the primary responsibility for the children's upbringing while simultaneously discharging her professional duties with diligence. The Courts below have rightly taken into consideration the fact that both minor children are studying in a School. It has also been noted that the elder child was enrolled in the same school even during the time when the parties resided together, and thus, the standard of schooling and related expenditure had already been a part of the household's financial planning. The continuation of the same educational institution ensures stability for the children and aligns with the standard of living they were accustomed to while living with both the parents. In cases such as the present one, where the mother is both the primary caregiver and a working woman managing the entirety of the children's daily lives, her non-financial contributions must be duly acknowledged, and a mechanical 50:50 sharing of financial liability cannot be imposed. It is also an admitted fact that the wife is earning a net monthly income of approximately Rs 75,000 to Rs 80,000. On the other hand, the husband's monthly income has been assessed at around Rs 1,75,000. In such circumstances, it would be just and equitable that the financial responsibility towards the upbringing of the minor children is shared more by the father of the children. The Delhi High Court on May 13, 2025, rejected a husband's divorce maintenance plea for making his divorced wife liable for sharing equal financial responsibility (50:50) for upkeep and education of their two minor children. The high court said that equal financial responsibility is not about gender, but rather of the parent who has custody which is the wife in this high court said she (wife) needs to do two jobs, one for the office and another after office for upkeep of the child and this contribution of hers cannot be quantified in monetary terms. To quote the High Court in exact terms, the court said, 'These psychological and emotional burdens cannot be calculated or addressed through a mere mathematical formula.'The husband on the other hand claimed that he earns just enough to barely sustain himself, but this disproportionate child maintenance amount ordered by the court is a burden for him. Though the wife had also filed a maintenance plea however, the court rejected her plea but upheld the child maintenance plea. The maintenance amount in this case is payable by the husband to the wife since she has custody of Delhi High Court said that this case is, in many ways, an acknowledgment – if not a tribute – to all working custodial parents, irrespective of gender, who strive each day to maintain equilibrium between their obligations as caregivers and professionals. The High Court said that even in cases where a father has custody of young and minor children, the challenges he faces are, in essence, not dissimilar to those encountered by a mother in a comparable rejecting the husband's plea, the High Could acknowledged that while societal perception may traditionally lean towards the belief that a father's role is rendered more difficult due to professional commitments and prevailing gender expectations, the same logic must equally apply to working mothers, who often navigate identical—if not heightened— below to learn more about the legal arguments in this case and what divorced fathers should to the judgement of the Delhi High Court dated May 13, 2025, here are the details:The Delhi High Court said:The above precedent was applied by Delhi High Court in this case and the court said:The Delhi High Court said:Thus the Delhi High Court rejected the husband's plea for making the wife liable to pay equal Agrawal, Advocate, Delhi High Court says: 'The court's paramount focus is the child's welfare, ensuring a standard of living and dignity comparable to what they would have enjoyed with both parents, extending beyond mere sustenance to include their self-esteem, education continuity, lifestyle, and opportunities. The invaluable non-monetary contributions of a custodial parent, particularly a working mother, such as emotional support, homework supervision, and daily care, are explicitly recognized as a full-time responsibility not measurable monetarily, thus precluding a mechanical 50:50 sharing of financial liability. Maintenance is not a punishment or charity, but a recognition of shared parental responsibility and the child's inherent right to support.'
