Domestic Violence Act | Post-Divorce Proceedings Maintainable If Relatable to Marriage Period : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can continue even after divorce if the allegations pertain to the period of marriage. This judgment underscores that a decree of divorce does not absolve a respondent from liability for acts of domestic violence committed during the subsistence of the marriage, reinforcing the expansive interpretation of domestic relationship under the Act.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Puneet Rastogi, sought quashing of a complaint filed by his former wife, Pratima Rastogi, under Section 12 of the DV Act. The complaint was pending before the Civil Judge (J.D)/FTC (Crime Against Women), Lucknow. The applicant contended that the complaint was frivolous, an abuse of process, and untenable post-divorce.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.04.2017 in Lucknow. Shortly after, the couple moved to Ghaziabad. On 09.11.2017, the applicant’s father passed away after a prolonged illness. The applicant alleged that the opposite party (his wife) and her brother created a scene over inheritance issues during this period, displaying cruelty and disrespect. From 08.04.2018 to 22.04.2018, the applicant was in Germany for an official trip, during which the opposite party stayed at her brother’s house despite requests to be with the applicant’s widowed mother.

Key Facts

• The applicant filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 20.04.2019, alleging cruelty by the opposite party.
• The opposite party filed a written statement in the divorce proceedings on 18.09.2021, nearly three years after the divorce petition, alleging physical and mental abuse by the applicant.
• The divorce petition was allowed on 01.03.2025 on grounds of cruelty committed by the opposite party.
• The opposite party’s petitions under Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) and Section 27 (Return of Stridhan) of the Hindu Marriage Act were dismissed in the same order.
• On 01.02.2019, the opposite party filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging domestic violence, mental harassment, and refusal to return Stridhan.
• The applicant argued that the allegations in the DV Act complaint were identical to those dismissed in the divorce proceedings and that no domestic relationship subsisted post-divorce.

Procedural History

• 01.02.2019: Opposite party filed a complaint under Section 12 DV Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
• 20.04.2019: Applicant filed for divorce under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act.
• 01.03.2025: Family Court allowed the divorce petition and dismissed the opposite party’s petitions under Sections 9 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• 2025: Applicant filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the DV Act complaint.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought quashing of the complaint under Section 12 DV Act, contending that it was an abuse of process and that no domestic relationship subsisted post-divorce.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act can be maintained post-divorce if the allegations of domestic violence relate to the period of marriage, and whether such proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The applicant relied on Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab ((2011) 10 SCR 557) to argue that proceedings under the DV Act cannot continue post-divorce, as no domestic relationship subsists.
• The allegations in the DV Act complaint were identical to those dismissed in the divorce proceedings, rendering the complaint frivolous and an abuse of process.
• The opposite party’s conduct during the applicant’s father’s illness and her refusal to cooperate in mediation demonstrated cruelty, justifying the divorce decree.
• The applicant’s mother had no domestic relationship with the opposite party, as casual visits do not constitute a domestic relationship under the DV Act.

For the Opposite Party

• The opposite party contended that the applicant was involved in an extra-marital affair and subjected her to mental and physical torture.
• She alleged that the applicant and his family retained her Stridhan and jewellery, which was never returned despite mediation efforts.
• The opposite party relied on Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022(2) ABR (CRI) 484) and Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori (AIRONLINE 2014 SC 224) to argue that proceedings under the DV Act can continue post-divorce if the allegations relate to the period of marriage.
• She argued that the divorce decree was one-sided, as neither party was cross-examined, and the appeal was pending due to financial constraints.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the scope of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the DV Act and the maintainability of proceedings post-divorce. It relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Inderjit Singh Grewal, Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 INSC 734), and Prabha Tyagi to hold that proceedings under the DV Act can continue post-divorce if the allegations relate to the period of marriage.

"Undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the court has to take its contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of this case, permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justice."

The Court emphasized that the DV Act is a welfare legislation designed to protect aggrieved women, and its provisions must be interpreted expansively. It held that a domestic relationship includes not only a subsisting relationship but also a past relationship where the parties lived together at any point in time. The Court observed:

"The judicial separation ordered by a court of law does not put an end to marriage and, hence, the domestic relationship continues between the wife and husband even though they may not be actually living together."

The Court distinguished Inderjit Singh Grewal on factual grounds, noting that the Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings in that case due to the specific factual backdrop, not as a general principle. It relied on Prabha Tyagi to hold that even post-divorce, an aggrieved woman can seek remedies under the DV Act if the allegations relate to the period of marriage.

"An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the husband from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

The Court also noted that the opposite party was entitled to claim monetary relief under Section 20, child custody under Section 21, compensation under Section 22, and interim/ex-parte orders under Section 23 of the DV Act. It held that these issues could only be decided after adducing evidence and that a mini-trial at the quashing stage was impermissible.

The Verdict

The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were maintainable. It observed that the opposite party was eligible to claim protection under the DV Act, as the definition of domestic relationship extends to persons who have lived together at any point in time. The Court directed that the trial court proceed with the complaint and decide the issues on merits after recording evidence. No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Domestic Relationship Extends Beyond Divorce

• Practitioners must note that a domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the DV Act is not limited to a subsisting marriage. It includes relationships where parties have lived together at any point, even if the marriage has since been dissolved.
• Courts will not quash proceedings under the DV Act merely because a divorce decree has been passed, provided the allegations relate to the period of marriage.

Evidence-Based Adjudication Is Key

• The Court emphasized that issues such as monetary relief, child custody, and compensation under the DV Act can only be decided after recording evidence. Practitioners should ensure that all relevant evidence is adduced to substantiate claims.
• Allegations of domestic violence must be specific and relatable to the period of marriage. Vague or general allegations may not suffice to sustain proceedings.

Abuse of Process Must Be Proved

• To succeed in a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, applicants must demonstrate that the proceedings are a clear abuse of process. Identical allegations dismissed in divorce proceedings may not automatically warrant quashing unless they are frivolous or vexatious.
• Courts will exercise caution in quashing proceedings under the DV Act, given its welfare-oriented objectives. Practitioners should focus on the merits of the allegations rather than procedural technicalities.