Bombay HC Distinguished Between Maintenance Provisions Under The DV Act And The Concept Of Refusal To Maintain Under CrPC

In a recent ruling, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court distinguished between maintenance provision under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the concept of neglect or refusal to maintain under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). According to Justice SG Mehare, Section 125 deals with situations where a person refuses or neglects to provide maintenance, whereas the DV Act does not specifically address such instances.

The aforementioned comments were made during a case where a husband was directed by a sessions court to provide maintenance to his wife. The order came after the wife applied for maintenance under the DV Act before a judicial magistrate, who initially rejected her application on the grounds that her pleadings and deposition didn't align. The sessions court agreed with the magistrate's ruling. However, the session judge viewed the case as a Section 125 CrPC application and found that the husband had "refused and neglected to maintain the wife," resulting in the grant of maintenance. The husband appealed this decision to the High Court.

Upon review, the High Court observed that the sessions judge had carefully examined the evidence and agreed with the magistrate court's determination that there was no domestic violence, thus denying the wife's request for financial relief under the DV Act.

Justice Mehare reaffirmed that a wife could seek relief under both the DV Act and CrPC concurrently. However, in this instance, the wife had not made a sufficient claim that the husband had failed to provide for her.