The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has ruled that a subsequent decree of divorce does not absolve a husband of liability for acts of domestic violence committed during the subsistence of the marriage. Dismissing an application filed by a husband seeking to quash domestic violence proceedings, Justice Brij Raj Singh held that a wife remains eligible to claim protection and seek benefits under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as the law explicitly covers past domestic relationships where the parties have lived together in a shared household at any point in time.
Background of the Case
The applicant (husband) and the opposite party no. 2 (wife) were married on April 18, 2017, in Lucknow, after which they moved to Ghaziabad to begin their matrimonial life. According to the husband, matrimonial discord arose early on. He alleged that his wife and her brother created a scene over his father’s body following his demise on November 9, 2017, and that she was uncooperative during his father’s prolonged illness.
Furthermore, the husband claimed that while he was on an official trip to Germany from April 8 to April 22, 2018, his wife stayed at her brother’s house. Although he attempted to reconcile and resolve the disputes through the District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow, pre-litigation mediation failed.
Subsequently, on February 1, 2019, the wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Following this, the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty, which was allowed by the Additional Principal Judge-8, Family Court, Lucknow, on March 1, 2025. In the same order, the wife’s petitions for restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9) and return of Stridhan (Section 27) were dismissed.
The husband then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the pending domestic violence complaint (Complaint Case No. 107/2019) on the grounds of maintainability.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant argued that because the family court had already granted a divorce on the grounds of cruelty committed by the wife, her claims in the domestic violence complaint were contradictory and could not be re-litigated. The counsel submitted that the allegations under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Domestic Violence Act were identical and had already been adjudicated by a competent court. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and another and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, the applicant argued that no subsisting domestic relationship remained after the dissolution of marriage, leaving no surviving cause of action.
On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that the husband, an MNC employee earning a high salary, had subjected her to physical and mental torture. He stated that the wife slipped into anxiety and depression as a result of his conduct, including an alleged extra-marital affair. The counsel further contended that the husband and his family retained all of her wedding jewelry (Stridhan). Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi and Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, alongside the High Court decision in Shashank Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others, the wife’s counsel argued that the parties shared a domestic relationship under Section 2(f), domestic violence occurred under Section 3, and a subsequent divorce does not wipe out past liabilities.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court analyzed several key precedents concerning the maintainability of the domestic violence proceedings post-divorce. Dealing with the husband’s reliance on Inderjit Singh Grewal, the Court noted the Supreme Court’s observation that: “permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the Act 2005 is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce which still subsists and thus, the process amounts to abuse of the process of the court.” However, the Court distinguished this by looking at broader jurisprudence.
Applying the law laid down in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi, the Court accepted that while Section 482 CrPC petitions are maintainable against domestic violence proceedings, High Courts must exercise caution and only interfere in cases of gross illegality or injustice.
Turning to the nature of a “domestic relationship,” the Court referenced the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Prabha Tyagi, which clarified that a domestic relationship is not limited to a present, subsisting relationship but extends to past relationships. Under this principle, even if marital ties cease, a divorced woman has recourse if the acts of domestic violence occurred during the subsistence of the relationship.
The Court strongly relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni, quoting: “An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief under Section 20, child custody under Section 21, compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2005.”
The Court also noted the coordinate bench ruling in Shashank Pandey, quoting: “Even though the marriage has subsequently been declared to be null and void, when the relationship between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 subsisted, it was a relationship in the nature of marriage. Therefore, the opposite party no. 2 is an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act she has a right to present an application under Section 12 of the DV Act.”
Court’s Decision
Justice Singh observed that since the parties were married and had shared a household, the domestic violence complaint could not be quashed at this stage without a trial. The Court remarked: “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.”
Dismissing the husband’s petition, the Court added: “The wife is eligible to claim protection under the Domestic Violence Act because the definition of domestic relationship as provided under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act includes not only a relationship between two persons who presently live together in a shared household, but also extends to persons who have, at any point of time lived together in a shared household.”
The Court concluded that the issues regarding monetary relief, compensation, and other claims must be decided by the trial court after examining the evidence. Finding the application devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed it.
Case Details:
Case Title: Puneet Rastogi Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No.6580 of 2025
Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh
Date: July 7, 2026
