DV act is approx 10 .. 11 years old ... But this woman left her husband 50+ years ago when there was NO DV act !! She still got money under DV act recently as awarded by a honorable HC .... And what's her proof ? She had a 50 year old photo where the bride does NOT look like her ( bride WAS a young girl 50+ years ago !! )
----------
Has anyone studied this High Court judgement where it's is reported in media that a woman has claimed maintenance under DV act some 50 years after her break up ?!!
Yes she separated from her husband approximately 50+ years ago.
Though the DV ACT came to force only 10 years ago, the honourable High Court has granted her maintenance Under domestic violence act saying the DV is continuing !!
if this is the case, if this understanding is correct, then this sets a judicial precedent and an important one
///////// Justice AV Chandrashekara, who delivered the judgment in this case on January 19, has held that there is nothing wrong in invoking a 10-year-old law in a 50-year-old incident. The judgment now sets a precedent for similar cases.//////
News >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
50 YEARS AFTER HER BREAK-UP, WOMAN DEMANDS MAINTENANCE
By Shyam Prasad S, Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Jan 28, 2016, 04.00 AM IST
Devakumari claimed to have married Ramachandrachar in 1965
Two senior citizens fought out a matrimonial case in the High Court that had all the trappings of a family saga with an intriguing mystery thrown in. A lady claiming to be the wife of a 68-year-old demanded maintenance from him 50 years after their marriage. But in a twist, the husband claimed that he was indeed married 50 years ago, but not with the woman who was before the court. However, the HC had a bigger question to answer. The woman had invoked a 10-year-old law to solve her 50-year-old dispute. But was it even applicable?
Justice AV Chandrashekara, who delivered the judgment in this case on January 19, has held that there is nothing wrong in invoking a 10-year-old law in a 50-year-old incident. The judgment now sets a precedent for similar cases.
A case was filed by 66-year-old Devakumari under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). She claimed to have married Ramachandrachar, 68, a resident of Chickpet, Bengaluru, on February 24, 1965.
They did not have any children and Ramachandrachar allegedly neglected her while developing illegal intimacy with another woman. Devakumari started living with her father. After the death of her father in 2009, she sent a legal notice to Ramachandrachar demanding she be allowed to live in his house and be paid a maintenance of `10,000 per month.
NOT MY REAL WIFE
Ramachandrachar, on the other hand, claimed that the real Devakumari, whom he had married, was not traced and she had given up her status as his wife. He had initiated a divorce proceeding against her in 1968 itself and she had not objected to it.
In her case for maintenance, Devakumari had produced, as documentary proof, the wedding invitation and a wedding photograph before the lower court. While a trial court rejected her petition, a city civil court, before which she appealed, granted her maintenance of `5,000.
Ramachandrachar filed a revision petition before the High Court. His advocate contended that there was no 'domestic violence' and therefore no maintenance could be awarded as per the DV Act. The DV Act came into force in 2005 and the couple's marriage was 50 years ago.
Devakumari's advocate argued that she was entitled to invoke the DV Act "even if she had been thrown out before the coming into force of the said Act, since such cause of action would be a continuing one."
The HC decided on three things; one, whether there was irregularity in the lower court order. Two, if the DV Act could be invoked for maintenance by a woman who was neglected by her husband even before the law came into force. Three, whether the maintenance amount granted by lower court was correct.
PHOTO AS EVIDENCE
About the first question, the HC said, "Normally, no lady would come to court projecting herself as a married lady of some person." It also said that Devakumari was "probably 15-16 years at the time of marriage in 1965. Therefore, the possibility of the respondent having no sexual contact with a young married girl cannot be ruled out."
The lower court had ruled that the Devakumari, who was before the court, was the same one who married Ramachandrachar, based on a photograph taken at the wedding. Therefore, the first question was answered in the affirmative that the lower court had not committed any irregularity.
About the second question, the court said that the DV Act could be invoked for an act that took place even before the law came into force as there was continuous cause of action. "The act being a welfare legislation connected with the protection of rights of women, economic abuse also amounts to violence and therefore, the first appellate court has granted monetary relief," it said.
