Woman Can Seek Maintenance At Any Time After Separation: Delhi HC

Judiciary Jan 02, 2019 Lawstreet News Network 2 Shares

The Delhi High Court has in a recent judgment held that there is no bar in law against women claiming maintenance for themselves or for their children even if they have not claimed it in the initial years after separation.

Also Read - Delhi HC shifts Caravan Defamation Case to Patiala House Court

Justice Mukta Gupta was hearing a plea filed by the husband to quash an FIR filed against him by the wife for subjecting her to cruelty.

In his plea, the husband argued that the FIR was registered to wreak vengeance and that it was beyond the period of limitation as the parties separated from each other in the year 2014.

Also Read - Delhi HC Orders All Subordinate Courts To Sit Physically on Alternate Day Basis [READ ORDER]

He relied on Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which says that there is a bar on courts taking cognizance of a crime after lapse of the period of limitation.

The wife argued that they resided together till August 2014 and in 2015 she filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women (CAW) cell where a settlement was arrived at between them in the pre-litigation mediation in April, 2016. However, the said settlement was not fully acted upon and the parties drifted away from the settlement. Later the wife filed an application for revival of the earlier complaint which was not revived as it had been closed, hence she filed a fresh complaint in July 2017.

Taking the arguments into consideration, the court said that “non-providing of maintenance was a continuing cause of action”, and there were no time period limitations for claiming it under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005.

“Non-providing of maintenance is a continuous cause of action and even if for three years the respondent no. 2 [wife] did not claim the maintenance for herself or for the child, the same would not debar her from seeking maintenance under Section 12 of the PWDV Act,” the judge said.

Further, the court also noted that since the earlier complaint was not revived, the wife was constrained to file the second complaint. “It cannot be said that the FIR in question is beyond the period of limitation and thus liable to be quashed on that count,” it said.

Delhi HC shifts Caravan Defamation Case to Patiala House Court

Judiciary Jan 19, 2021 Gautami Chakravarty ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 6 Shares

The Delhi High recently shifted the criminal defamation case against The Caravan on Friday, 15th January, 2021 to Patiala House District Court. The petitioner in this case is Vivek Doval, son of National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, and the respondent is The Caravan Magazine and others.The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench consisting of Justice Mukta Gupta.Earlier, the matter was heard by a Rouse Avenue District Court exclusively dealing with matters relating to lawmakers. Congress...

Read full post

Delhi HC Orders All Subordinate Courts To Sit Physically on Alternate Day Basis [READ ORDER]

Judiciary Jan 18, 2021 Gautami Chakravarty ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 2 Shares

The Registrar General of the Delhi High Court has instructed the Principal District & Sessions Judges and the Principal Judge, Family Court to start physical hearings on an alternate day basis from 18.01.2020.It will be done through video conferencing on non physical days. The order directs the Principal District & Sessions Judges and the Principal Judge, Family Court to prepare a roster of all other subordinate courts within their respective districts to ensure that the...

Read full post