mumbai even if a woman fails to prove she is the legally wedded wife of a man she can still claim maintenance if she shows a domestic relationship existed between them by making use of the domestic violence act dva the bombay high court has ruled throwing out the plea of an osmanabad resident that he was not bound to pay anything to the woman who claimed to be his second wife justice t v nalawade held she had given enough proof of a relationship in the form of a marriage the judge quashed a sessions court order and said 53yearold nitin jadhav will have to pay maintenance to his second wife neeta 38 provisions of the dv act show that for getting relief the person like the present petitioner is required to prove that she had lived together with the man in a shared household said justice nalawade such evidence is given by neeta in this case and there is nothing in rebuttal when the respondent like the husband from the present case denies the relationship itself it can be used as one of the circumstances against him for the proof of domestic violence added the judge the court pointed out under dva relief could be claimed under any pending cases before the civil or criminal courts this means that even when an application under section 125 of the criminal procedure code where a wife can claim maintenance on grounds of neglect is filed a plea under the dva can also be lodged even if the interpretation of term wife is not changed for the purpose of section 125 of crpc and the claimant woman fails to establish that she is the wife she can establish that she falls under the definition of domestic relationship under the dva as per the dva a domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live in have at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by blood marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage adoption or are family members living together as a joint family according to neeta she had married nitin in early 2000 and they lived together with his first wife for four to five years however when she failed to have a child like nitins first wife both of them threw her out of the matrimonial home in 2007 they also demanded money to take her back neeta then filed an application under section 12 of the dva which allows a victim of domestic violence to claim compensation a magistrate ordered nitin to pay maintenance but a sessions court struck down the order in appeal neeta then approached the high court which ruled in her favour recently names of couple changed to protect their identities