VENKATRAMANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO quash the proceedings in DVC. No. 4 of 2009 on the file of X Addl. Metropolitan magistrate, Malkajgiri on the ground that the domestic Violence Act has no application to the case and on the ground that the 2nd respondent was living separately from the petitioner even prior to the Domestic Violence act came into force, the presence petition is filed.

(2.) IN pursuance of the order passed bythe family Court seeking divorce, the matter was compromised and the consent decree of compromise was passed by the Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad on 7-12-2005. There was no marital relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent after 7-12-2005. Admittedly, the Domestic Violence act has come into force with effect from 26th october 2006. There cannot be any dispute that a penal law would come into force prospectively but not retrospectively. The allegations in the complaint are that in pursuance of the consent decree, the petitioner undertook the responsibility of incurring all the expenditure forthe maintenance ofthe children. That obligation has not been discharged by the petitioner. Economic violence has been defined under Section 3 (e) of the Domestic violence Act. Not paying the amounts in pursuance ofthe consent decree amounts an economic violence for which they need not residue under one roof even though the marriage is dissolved. In pursuance of the settlement, the petitioner undertook the responsibility of incurring all the expenditure for the education of the children. Till such obligation is fulfilled, it can be said to be a continuing offence. Therefore, even if the domestic Violence Act came into force even after the consent decree was passed, if the petitionerfailed to pay that amount it would be an economic violence. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. The petition is dismissed.