I totally go with the reported judgement of ASJ and there is no ambiguity regarding its legality. The Section 2(f) of the Act defines "domestic relationship", which says - "domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared house hold......."
So, no illegality is there in the cited judgment. It is quite natural, husband and wife lived together and she was subjected to cruelty and on one fine day she was thrown out of matrimonial house and she went to her parental house and tried to reconcile differences for six months and finally lost hope and filed domestic violence case against the husband for the cruelty she met out during her stay at matrimonial home. At the time of filing the petition, they were not living together, so can you say that she is not entitled to invoke the provisions of DV Act?
Now, I will come to other topic for which Roshni is ridiculed for highlighting the above judgment. In her own right she can place whatever she likes on this forum. She has never used any foul language against any one. If any one does not find any legal value in such posts, they may well stop to read her posts, but running her down and calling her legal ignorant is reprehensible.
I recall several things on this point.
one Smt. Kamini Lau, an addl. district judge from Delhi gave a judgment on dowry matter and in such judgment she held that dowry giving is an offence and directed the police to register FIR against the girl's parents. She has also given a general direction that as and when women come with a complaint in the police station saying that their parents gave dowry, the police should register FIRs against wifes' parents in addition to registering FIR against the boys for taking dowry.
When this judgment came, men's rights activists continuously for months together posted this judgment again and again and discussed with contended hearts joyfully saying that they will keep the wife's parents in jail. NOW THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TEACHING TO ROSHNI THAT ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE'S RULINGS ARE NOT BINDING FORGOT AT THAT TIME THAT EVEN MS. KAMINI LAU'S JUDGEMENT IS NOT BINDING.
Later on came Justice Dhingra. He also in one of his judgements upheld the position taken by Ms. Kamini Lau. He further ruled that if stridhan articles are not listed as per the rules prescribed in Dowry Prohibition Act, the items demanded by the wife may be fictitious and the husband need not return them. AGAIN THESE MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CAME ON THIS FORUM WITH A LOT OF NOISE SAYING SEVERAL THINGS AGAINST WIVES SEEKING JUSTICE. AT THAT TIME THEY HAVE NOT SAID THAT THESE RULINGS DELIVERED BY A SINGLE JUDGE CAN BE OVER-RULED BY DIVISION BENCH AND SUPREME COURT. Now, they are trying to teach Roshni that her cited judgement can be ruled out.
FYI, MS. KAMINI LAU'S JUDGMENT AND MR. SHIV NARAIN DHINGRA'S JUDGEMENTS WERE OVERRULED BY DELHI HIGH COURT ON THE GROUND THAT SECTION 7(3) OF THE D.P. ACT DOES NOT PERMIT PROSECUTION AGAINST THE DOWRY GIVERS. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THIS DECISION.
Now comes the interesting part.
Last year, the socalled men's rights activists created so much noise just while filing "Varsha Kapoor's case" in High Court saying that they are challenging the constitutional validity of Domestic Violence Act and they are also challenging to make mother in law and sister in law as respondents and the court will give judgement in their favour instantly and it is matter of days the court will declare DV Act unconstitutional and throw it away in dust bin. The Delhi High Court gave a judgment very quickly within three months, but alas, upheld the DV Act as constitutional and its need in the present circumstances and also ruled that women can be respondents in DV cases. The judgment is one of the most illuminating judgments and the people interested in DV cases must read it thoroughly. It also talks about how laws are made, amended and how the social pressures and desires mould the law. I will post it in a few days.
But once, the judgement came out, these men's rights' activists, not even once, acknowledged that they lost case. They want to keep the people in dark and again and again are posting the same points saying that DV Act is unconstitutional. If any one who read the judgement of delhi high court will laugh at these people and their feeble efforts to hide the truth and talk nothing but non-sense.
I summarize their attitude:
1. If women post the judgements of District judge, they ridicule it, but they post District Judge' judgement brazenlly (eg. Ms. kamini Lau's judgement)
2. If women refer high court judgement, they ridicule it, but they post HC judgement as if it would be applicable through out the widdth and bredth of India (e.g.Justic Shiv Narain dhingra's judgements)
3. They simply hide the judgements delivered against them in High Court and Supreme Court, but tell us that they are here only to share knowledge and not to take any sides.