Sau. Shilabai Hiraji Lonare Vs. Hiraji Sitru Lonare
Bombay High Court ( Nagpur bench )
Decided on 11/03/2020
The allegations relates way back to the year 1992. The petitioner has not explained as to what happened during the period from 1992 to 2012. The petitioner Wife got maintenance order but not filed any execution, it reveals that she is not in any financial needs . In order to constitute cause of action, the act of domestic violence shall be continuous. Merely on the basis of one isolated incident, it is difficult to hold that there has been domestic violence. The petitioner has not established that she has continuous cause of action from the year 1992, till the enforcement of the D.V. Act.
Held: Therefore, the isolated incident of the year 2012 cannot be termed as a domestic violence. [para no.10 & 11]
PARA 10. In order to grant relief under the D.V. Act, it is prerequisite to establish the domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the D.V. Act. The petitioner besides isolated instances of refusal to give financial aid for children’s marriage in the year 2009 and 2012, said nothing against the respondent. Moreover, the rest allegations relates way back to the year 1992. The petitioner has not explained as to what happened during the period from 1992 to 2012. In order to constitute cause of action, the act of domestic violence shall be continuous. Merely on the basis of one isolate incident, it is difficult to hold that there has been domestic violence. The petitioner has not established that she has continuous cause of action from the year 1992, till the enforcement of the D.V. Act.
PARA 11. It reveals that the petitioner was not in financial need, which is obvious from her own action that despite having maintenance order in her favour the same was not executed. Pertinent to note that the respondent never visited the petitioner’s house at any time. Even if the allegations are held to be true, respondents act is only to refuse to pay for marriage of his son. As noted above, for the marriage of the daughter, he has provided financial help, which is evidence from record. Therefore, the isolated incident of the year 2012 cannot be termed as a domestic violence. The learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the entire evidence in proper manner. Therefore, the impugned judgment calls for no interference, hence, Criminal Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
