ARADHANA WALKADE Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent got married on 8/8/2001. They had a daughter out of the wedlock. However, unfortunately, the parties were divorced by the order of the Court dated 24/2/2010 passed in Matrimonial Petition No.43/2009/A by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. At the time of granting decree of divorce, the learned Judge did not pass any order of maintenance, as it was not prayed for at the relevant time. However, after the decree of divorce, the respondent/husband out of love and concern was paying the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the daughter to the petitioner August 2011. Thereafter, the respondent/husband stopped paying the said amount, from August 2011, the petitioner filed application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (D.V. Act, for short) in the Court of J.M.F.C., Mapusa, as her child was deprived of maintenance and she thereby suffered economic abuse. This case was registered as Criminal Case No. OA./166/DVA/2012/E. And entertained by the J.M.F.C, Mapusa.

(3.) The respondent appeared in the said matter and he filed reply resisting the question of maintainability of the said criminal case under the D.V. Act. The challenge was given on the sole ground that the divorce between the parties has taken place on 24/2/2010 and as the parties are not legally wedded husband and wife and not sharing the household and therefore provisions of D.V. Act cannot be attracted. The said application challenging maintainability of the provisions of the D.V. Act was contested before the J.M.F.C and was dismissed by the Learned J.M.F.C by its order dated 31/7/2010. The respondent husband thereafter challenged the said order by filing criminal revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mapusa, which was registered as Criminal revision Application No.87/2012/E. The said Criminal Revision application was allowed and the order passed by the learned JMFC upholding maintainability of the complaint under the D.V. Act was quashed and set aside.