LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     12 August 2011

'denying wife access to marital home is domestic violence-hc

'Denying wife access to marital home is domestic violence'



Depriving one's wife of financial support and access to the matrimonial home constitutes domestic violence, the Bombay high court has ruled in an important order. Dismissing a petition filed by Buldhana resident Salim Khan, Justice A P Bhangale upheld a lower court's order that the man's estranged wife Meherunissa, who was thrown out of the house in 2001, could file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act.

Salim's lawyers had argued that the allegations of harassment and abuse were prior to 2006, which is when the Act came into force. The high court said in Meherunissa's case, there was a "continuous cause of action as she was still his wife".

var adSkipCounter = 0; //google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
"Continued deprivation of economic or financial resources and continued prohibition or denial of access for the shared household to the aggrieved person is domestic violence and protection under the Act will be available to the wife who was driven out from her husband's shared household prior to it coming into effect," said Justice Bhangale. "Even if the woman was in the past in a relationship, she would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act on the basis of continuing cause of action."

Salim and Meherunissa married in 1993 and they have two daughters. According to Meherunissa, she faced constant harassment and demands for money and was finally driven out of the house in 2001. She and her parents were threatened when they could not pay the money demanded by Salim in 2002. When the financial condition of Meherunissa's parents grew worse and she was unable to meet their medical expenses, she lodged a domestic violence complaint in 2009. She sought Rs 5,000 as monthly maintenance for herself and their two daughters and a lump sum payment of Rs 3 lakh towards compensation, medical expenses and litigation costs. Salim challenged the petition saying that the application was not maintainable, but the lower court dismissed his plea. He then approached the high court.

Salim's lawyers claimed that all the incidents of alleged abuse relate to incidents prior to 2005, and the DV Act cannot be given a retrospective effect. Meherunissa's lawyers contended that as the marriage had not yet been dissolved, the cause of action still continued. They also pointed out that the court had powers to restrain the husband from alienating the matrimonial household and the wife continued to have a right over the shared household.

The HC agreed. "Denial of access to shared household to the wife took place prior to the Act coming into force, but such denial continued even thereafter," said the judge. "Giving relief to the wife for continuous breach of the legal right would not amount to giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the Act," the judge said.

(Names of the couple changed to protect their identities)



 69 Replies

victimof bisedlaw (jobless)     12 August 2011

@ Roshni B.....

You alwase give a citation in favour of women.... BUT could you think that a wife left the husband home without any reasonable cause, don't fulfill her normal household liabilities, go and back on her will at her parents home and also challenge to husband and his parents to parpare for faceing jail then what is the rights for husband.


Answer only when if you really want justice againest innocent.


N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     12 August 2011

Thanks Roshni B for posting the Bombay High Court ruling. But why do woman always depend on man? See even ants, birds and butterfly work for their survival but it appears in India women always depend on man and divorce is akin to money making, dont you thnk so?

2 Like


dependence is a different thing and snatching away own's right to own residence is a different thing and very insulting thing.Women should not be dependent on male but they should learn to protest to any wrong to them.

1 Like

Krish Narayan (Advocate)     13 August 2011

Firtst it should be admitted that a real aggrieved wife must be given relief from her husband.

But there are several legislations to protect women, even erring or cheating woman. At the same time there is none to man, even genuine.

Now-a-days women take all these legislations on hand to blackmail, threaten or cheat their husbands to grab money. The relief of divorce has become a money earning mechanism.

The relief under personal law, the relief under criminal law (to threaten the husband by prosecution of case, if it is not compromised or compounded with huge money), the relief under DV Act, the relief under DP Act like so on, supporting the wife and by these the husband cannot survive with mental peace.

A wife can easily turn the family bond into family business for her selfish ends and put the husband to all sorts of trouble.

Therefore citing the rulings supporting the wife is not a glorious matter. Interpretation will almost be made in favour of wife, as the objects and reasons of the concerned Act is so.  If judgments in favour of Husband are cited, the 'AHC' (Aggrieved Husband Community') will praise for ever.

vinod (others)     13 August 2011

the law caters for all the grieviences of a marital home with the balance somewhat tilted in the favour  of the lady but what i want to say is why does the law not provide a charter of the duties of both the husband and wife. there is marital disharmony only when one of them do not carry out their duties or responsibilities properly so why does not the law come out with a charter which clearly defines the duties and responbibilities of each and every member of the family so that there remain no ambiguity about the role which anyone is suppossed to play in the family. if anyone fails to comply with this then he/she can be brought to justice. i feel that this will be a better way out and the laws and people should not be gender biased as it is felt so.

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     14 August 2011

Salim's lawyers had argued that the allegations of harassment and abuse were prior to 2006, which is when the Act came into force. The high court said in Meherunissa's case, there was a "continuous cause of action as she was still his wife".


This is the crux of the post. Media is the real culprit behind such headlines. They do not understand 'L' of LAW and write so huge and bold fonted articles and publish them. It's ruining the country in place of building it.


@Roshni.B:: I request you NOT to post such (copy&paste) articles which mislead the learned members and visitors of this forum.




Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     14 August 2011



nothing is misleading here.this is a judgement based news,meant for informing the public.


the media had not made these words bold or highlighted in yellow.i did the same.


actually u cant digest any judge or law helping an aggrieved u get frustrated reading such u expect me not to post them here.u also fear that other women may "misuse" these laws after reading judgements that i post in favour of wives.


hai ki nahi?

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     14 August 2011



I do not understand why you always take every incoming information based on "Man V/s Woman"!!! I only placed my remarks on the news item. Neither I'm against women nor am I inclined towards men.


I'm here for "real equality" and not "fake equality". Grow-up Roshni....


And about the judgment, this is only an out of way interpretation that an act which keeps a family member "especially woman" out of home is domestic violence. "Domestic Violence", as the term itself implies, it is an act of violence or disturbance performed within the domestic limits. Also an act is applicable only to acts performed after its commencement and there is no retrospective effect available in criminal jurisprudence.


It's expedient you change your attitude and start thinking "equally" to then think of "real equality". Only by thinking of giving women an equal status, all feminists forget when they breach the limit of equality amongst men and go beyond equality to favourism and biased practices against men. Like you.




1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     14 August 2011


come on saurabh..


u r telling me,that i am a biased person!!read all my posts from oct 2010 onwards and u will know how "biased" i am!!

u need maturity more than i one o the threads someone has also labelled you of being an over-confident,law student..remember?

though i agree with many of ur arguments,esp. where u stress  that s*x dun in pleasure cannot be labelled by the girl as rape afterwards,but on this point i do not agree,where u scrutinise a wife who asks  questions in LCI.

u always stress out and humilite any wife asked who talks about her matrimonial woes and start using LCI as a courtroom to judge whether she is a liar or not.


however if a man is discussing his matrimonial saga,u ask him no such questions,even though he may also be lying.he must be beating his wife black and blue inside his home,and here he must be acting innocent.yet u never question him.


similarly u ask no such questions from a keep who is hell bent upon breaking a legally wedded wife's home and asks for tips to do the same.while she is supported by other people(including few lawyers who advise her live-in)ur attitude towards such women seems to be neutral.

but u always doubt a wife if she has a problem and shares the same.


so who is biased here?


ur ways of concluding things are laughable.for example u alleged a wife of being a fake yesterday (who shared her problem in hindi),only because she did not inform her parents for a long time that her husband and inlaws are abusive..your argument is that when other women can file 498a so easily,how she can remain dumb for so long?now this is such a funny is she related to other women?


everyone has his personality...some take decisions to file a case quickly,else it may weken in the eyes of the judge with passage of time,and may get dismissed....some are too scared and passive they take time to file a case or keep feeling scared that does not make them fake.i hope u know this very basic psychology..



a lady may have several reasons why she did not inform her parents initially about her abuse...they must be ill/stressed. so she must not be wanting to give them more tension.or she must be too scared that the husband may harm her if she complains.or she wanted to save her marriage,and thought of ignoring these matters initially.

for several months,i too never informed my parents who were in india ,that i am being harassed,as i was bothered about their health.once when i informed after sevearl months,my mum had cold sweats the whole night in i stopped informing thereafter and suffered for a long time alone.

now according to your defination of a fake wife,i am sure i too come into the same category now...




Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     14 August 2011



You are nothing but over-confident person. Now if this statement of mine would make you so, I think you should believe in horse-horns :p


Doesnt matter how someone talks about me. I would stay as I'm cause it's MY identity. I have all the rights to speak, scrutinize and analyze which NO ONE can take away from me. Not even your lame replies!


You pointed out about delayed reporting of the woman but forgot the sword drama? If that's not all, try to think yourself that whatever was written contains complete FIR copy (if you have seen one). That's another story which was cooked by an advocate's mind. If you don't trust me, put this story "as is" before any neutral person or a judge and answer would open your eyes wider. Exaggeration is found in abundance in fake complaints which is evident in that post. If you couldn't find it, this doens't make me biased or laughable!!


About your story of NOT reporting to your mom, does not include any sword fight out of which you in-laws escape scratch free! Why can't you remove the "feminist" blindfold and see the underlying truth ?


Truth has uncanny habit of surfacing!


Your ID name says "Justice & Dignity" but if you go blind to prove your point, what kind of dignity and justice would you arrive at.


Any person, whom I respond, I analyze as my per standards of truthfulness and then I reply. If I go against 1000 women and favor 1000 men, then it doesnt mean I'm biased. It may also mean that 1000 men were true and 1000 women were wrong.


May be you should see my other posts where I strongly supported female posts too. But why would you see that. To critisize me, you would only target those specific lines which bothers my image as being against females. You should try journalism! Masala Muching, news crunching !!




1 Like

hema (law officer)     15 August 2011

@saurabh B.

Bakwas likhne me tere barabar koi nahi hai.  Keep it up and harass the people around you.


well said Mr. Sourabh its superb reply what u said as a Indian Citizen...keep it up

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     21 August 2011

There is another thread posted by "Princess" on SIFF on this very same page. I suggest that let Roshni Madam read that for a change. Why the two females together are attacking the poor boy Sourabh. What all he says is right. Don't start calling names when losing an argument.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     21 August 2011



I think you should visit temples for bhajan-kirtan,and do some meditation at your age.


As I told you earleir also,do not try to play politics all the time.


I think you have not got any maturity even at this age,despite Ph.D.


What have you done your Ph.D in?In playing politics???

It;s because of people like you that their son's or daughter's marriages get ruined.I am sure you must be one of those home breaking parent for your son or daughter.If they are not married yet,they will surely get divorced because of you.If they are sensible enough, they will leave you in your old age because of your irritating nature.I am sure about this.


As for my argument with Saurabh,it had got over long back.But it seems you food does not get digested if you do not see fights happening.So you try to provoke members always against me.


Yeah keep doing so,and keep failing also side by side,as with Abhinatre Gupt,Subhomoy Das and so on,as they did not get influnced by you in order to fight with me in all those threads where you tried to turn them against me.So keep attempting with your politics and keep failing also...All the very best!.


To hell with good for nothing,retired "politicians" like you...............

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query