Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Crl.M.C.390/19 - : 7 :-

8. Sri.P.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the incidental issue taken up by the lower appellate court that the petitioner has been divorced by the 1 st respondent and that therefore such a divorced lady cannot claim any shared house hold right in respect of the residential building in which she was residing along with her husband, is not legally tenable. It is pointed out that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner no such valid talaq has been pronounced by the 1 st respondent on her and that in view of the later judgment of the Apex Court on such issues, heavy onus is there on the husband to prove that divorce has been validly obtained in the manner known to law. Further it is pointed out that this Court has clearly held in decisions as in Bipin v. Meera [2016 (4) KLT 418] that any act which has a rational nexus to the past matrimonial relationship or which arises therefrom or as a sequel to that relationship, should conceptually fall within the provisions of D.V. Act and that the cause of action for any relief under the DV Act is not confined to the fators of time and space with regard to the matrimonial relationship, but extents beyond their limits, if it has a rational nexus with the domestic relationship, past or present, etc. This Court need not enter into those aspects and if such Crl.M.C.390/19 - : 8 :-