LALITA TOPPO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us would have an efficacious remedy to seek maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to "DVC Act, 2005") even assuming that she is not the legally wedded wife and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is because of the provisions contained in Section 3(a) of the DVC Act, 2005 which defines the term "domestic violence" in the following terms:-

(2.) What would be significant to note is that economic abuse also constitutes domestic violence and economic abuse has been defined by Explanation I(iv) to Section 3 of the DVC Act, 2005 to mean:

(3.) In fact, under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005 the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, to a shared household also.