Single judge dismissed the application challenging the Sessions Court order, upholding that a wife living abroad cannot claim a domestic relationship in India for DV Act purposes after significant time has passed since the relationship ended.
Application dismissed; challenge to Sessions Court order rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) (4) APL 160/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2011
Sejal Dharmesh Ved .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Amit S. Dhutia i/b Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 7 th MARCH, 2013.
P.C.
(2) (4) APL 160/11
union subsisted. That having came to an an end and long after the physical relationship came to be an end, she having returned to India, she cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship in India.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a wife who returned to India after living abroad with her husband can maintain an application under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 if long after the physical relation
Whether the definition of domestic relationship under the Act requires the parties to be cohabiting at the time of filing the application or merely at the time of the incident.
Whether an application filed more than one year after returning to India from abroad is maintainable when the domestic relationship had ceased.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sejal Dharmesh Ved
The State of Maharashtra
ROSHAN DALVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
