LAWS(KER)-2016-10-15

BIPIN, AGED 36 YEARS, CHANDRASENAN, RESIDING AT T.C. 50/365(3), PANACHAYIL, KALADI, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. MEERA D.S., AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. K. SUSHAMA DEVI, MANU BHAVANAM, OPP. MUNICIPAL BUILDING, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

Decided On October 13, 2016
Bipin, Aged 36 Years, Chandrasenan, Residing At T.C. 50/365(3), Panachayil, Kaladi, Karamana P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Appellant
V/S
Meera D.S., Aged 32 Years, D/O. K. Sushama Devi, Manu Bhavanam, Opp. Municipal Building, Attingal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether subsistence of the matrimonial relationship is the sine-qua-non for seeking reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('D.V. Act' for brevity, hereinafter). To be more precise, whether a legally divorced wife can seek reliefs under the D.V. Act.

(2.) Shorn of all unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case is as follows. The petitioner in the Crl.M.C had married the first respondent in 2011. Second respondent child was born to them. The matrimonial relationship got strained thereafter and hence the spouses moved family court with a joint petition for divorce invoking section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. After compliance of statutory formalities, divorce was granted by the Family Court in May 2015. Marriage stood dissolved with effect from the date of judgment. Thereafter in Aug. 2015, respondents 1 and 2 filed the present application before the magistrate court seeking reliefs under sections 18, and 20 of the D.V. Act. The reliefs sought were a protection order against domestic violence, return of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the first respondent misappropriated by the petitioner or its value, order restraining him from operating the bank locker in which the gold ornaments were kept and for return of the passport of the first respondent, retained by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has sought to quash the above proceedings, on the ground that the above application is an abuse of the process of law. Three specific grounds were urged by the petitioner. Firstly, divorce on mutual consent was sought by parties on a specific, categoric agreement that wife will not claim money, ornaments or maintenance against husband in future. Secondly that, the reliefs sought can be granted only to a woman who is or has a subsisting matrimonial relationship or a relationship in the nature of a matrimonial relationship and not to a divorced wife. Thirdly, at any rate, even if all other reliefs can be granted, a relief in the nature of protection order cannot be granted to a divorced wife and child born in such relationship, since the matrimonial relationship was brought to an end factually and legally. Otherwise such relief can be sought at any time during the entire life time of wife and child, which was not contemplated by the Statute.