Denying household resources is also domestic violence: HC
The protection under the Act will be made available to wife who was driven out from her husband’s household prior to coming into effect of the DV Act 2005 but the deprivation continued even after the Act came into force,” the judge ruled. The court held that even if the woman was in a past relationship, she would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the DV Act on the basis of continuing cause of action. According to Khan’s wife Nahid Akhtar, she and Khan entered into wedlock on January 24, 1993, and had two daughters. Her father had spent .`2 lakh during marriage and also gifted some gold ornaments and cash worth .
`90,000. However, she was being allegedly ill-treated and tortured by in-laws and husband. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home by Khan in 2001 after she could not provide .`1 lakh for his
clothes business. Even during stay with her parents, Khan thrashed her mercilessly which led her to lodge a complaint at Khandwa police station. Nahid became psychotic due to torture and was unable to bear her medical expenses as her parents were poor. In her complaint, she prayed for a monthly alimony of.`5,000 for herself and two kids along with .`1 lakh for medical expenses and.
` 2 lakh compensation. While the case was pending in Khandwa court, Khan filed an application in Khamgaon court in Buldhana objecting to the maintainability of his wife’s claims contending that DV Act of 2005 had no retrospective effect as it came into force from October 26, 2006, and they had started living separately from May 9, 2001. The Khamgaon court rejected Khan’s application on the ground that the marital relationship between them is still subsisting.