Denial Of Economic Support To Wife & Minor Son Amounts To DV Even If Parties Aren't Residing in shar
Sonal Bhargava | Prabhat Bandhulya
Denial Of Economic Support To Wife & Minor Son Amounts To 'Domestic Violence' Even If Parties Aren't Residing In Shared Household: Calcutta H.C. Case Title: Md. Safique Mallick v. The State of West Bengal & Anr The Calcutta High Court on Thursday observed that denial of economic support to the wife and the minor son constitutes 'domestic violence' under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005) and that it is immaterial whether the parties are still residing in a shared household or not. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was deciding on a motion to dismiss criminal charges brought against the petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act and is currently being heard by the relevant Judicial Magistrate. In the current case, the petitioner and his wife (opposite party no. 2) were wed on November 20, 2011, in accordance with Muslim sharia law, and it was claimed that a short time after, the wife had started acting inappropriately toward the petitioner. After that, on February 15, the opposing party voluntarily departed her marital house with her little child. Finally, on January 19, 2016, the petitioner granted his wife a divorce through Talaknama in accordance with Muslim Personal Law, and she agreed. However, it was asserted that the opposite party no. 2 had brought a bogus criminal case after receiving a copy of the Talaknama. Additionally, she had filed a civil lawsuit in which she prayed for a declaration that the Talaq divorce from January 19, 2016, was invalid in legal terms and had not been performed in accordance with Muslim law. She also prayed for a permanent injunction barring the defendant from implementing the Talaknama divorce. The Court noted that after reading the opposing arguments, the opposite party no. 2 had requested the issuance of several orders under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the D.V. Act, 2005, as well as an interim order under Section 23 for financial relief for herself and their son. The Court observed that notwithstanding the purported talaq, domestic violence in the form of economic abuse persisted on a daily basis, as evidenced by the opposite party no. 2's request for temporary respite for the rearing of their son. The Court noted that the limitation would only apply if an offence is committed in accordance with the terms of the D.V. Act, 2005 and not concerning an application made under Section 12 of the same Act, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the current application is time-barred under Section 468 of the CrPC. In this case, the Supreme Court's ruling in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan was relied upon.