The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act came in 2005. The wife may seek financial assistance for herself and the child in accordance with Section 23 of the Act. In CRR 153 of 2020, the Hon’ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed “that prayer for the cancellation of Talak is still sub-judice and not yet finalised and also considering the fact that under Section 3 of DV Act, 2005, “domestic violence” includes emotional abuse as well as economic abuse, it can hardly be said at this stage that even though both the parties are residing separately, the opposite party no. 2 cannot be categorised as “aggrieved person”.
The Hon’ble Judge further ruled that denying financial aid can be viewed as financial deprivation. According to the definition of domestic violence in the law, whether the husband and wife are still living together or separated is secondary. Even if the wife has a job, it must be determined whether her income is enough and reliable for the mother and child given the lifestyle she is accustomed to.
It is to be noted that in the said case, the Husband divorced his wife due to a family dispute. The wife filed a case in the lower court against that decision. He also alleged domestic violence for financial deprivation while separated. However, the lower court did not stay it. Later, the husband appealed to the High Court to dismiss the complaint of financial deprivation, arguing that the divorce was valid. The High Court gave that judgment because of that case.
Please read the full judgment herein below: