Pushpalatha @ Latha vs G.N. Vijayakumar

A.S. Pachhapure

Though the matter is posted for hearing on I.A., with the consent of the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner herein is admittedly a divorced wife of the respondent. The divorce was granted vide order dated 17.08.2007 in M.C. No. 16/2011. Despite the divorce, she filed a petition for the reliefs of residence and also maintenance under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]. The learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance and aggrieved by the said Order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent, whereas the petitioner/divorced wife also '' filed an appeal, seeking enhancement and other reliefs. The appeal of the respondent was allowed and the appeal filed by the petitioner/divorced wife u/s 12 of the Act came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The question that arises for consideration is;

Whether the petitioner, who is a divorced wife is entitled to the relief under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act?

Under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person has a right to file an application, seeking one of the reliefs under the Act. The present petitioner, who is admittedly a divorced wife filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking maintenance, a residence Order and also other monetary benefits.

As could be seen from the definition of "aggrieved person" under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, it reads as follows:

"aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent : and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

(Emphasis supplied)

So, as could be seen from the above said provision, an aggrieved person, who is a woman, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent. The word "domestic relationship" has been defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act and it reads as follows:

domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live of have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

So, as could be seen from the definition referred to supra, a person, who is related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as joint family or the person, who fall within the definition of domestic relationship. A divorced wife does not fall within the purview of this Section.

Though the learned counsel contended that under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C, the petitioner sought an Order of maintenance, but under the said provision, even a divorced wife is also entitled to the maintenance as she is considered as a wife for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. So, in such circumstances, after the divorce on 17.03.2007. the petitioner neither comes within the purview of an "aggrieved person" or a person having "domestic relationship" with the respondent. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner/divorced wife. Hence, I do not find any merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner/divorced wife is at liberty to seek enhancement of the maintenance by filing a petition u/s 127 Cr.P.C.