Subsequent Decree Of Divorce Does Not Take Away Aggrieved Person's Right To Claim Reliefs Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that a subsequent decree of divorce does not take away the right of the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh observed that, "in the present case there was a subsisting relationship at the time of filing of application under the DV Act and the subsequent decree of divorce would not take away the right of aggrieved person to claim reliefs under the DV Act."
Counsel Vikramaditya Deshmukh and Counsel Sapana Rachure appeared for the applicant.
The Applicant and Respondent no.1, both citizens of the USA, got married on 3rd January 1994 in Mumbai and also had a marriage ceremony in the USA on 25th November 1994. They resided together in India and the USA before the respondent moved out of the matrimonial house in May 2008. In 2017, the Applicant filed for divorce in the USA, which was granted on 3rd January 2018.
On 7th July 2017, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the DV Act in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. She alleged instances of physical and emotional abuse, accusing the Applicant of assaulting her, casting aspersions on her character, and restricting her interactions with her family.
The Applicant's response to the application was disregarded by the Metropolitan Magistrate as he didn't make himself available for cross-examination.
The Metropolitan Magistrate held that the application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the DV Act had merit. The magistrate granted various reliefs sought by Respondent No. 1, including interim maintenance, possession of the flat at Meru Heights, restraining orders against the transfer of the flat, alternate accommodation, and compensation. Additionally, the magistrate dismissed the interim application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 23 of the DV Act seeking further reliefs.
The Sessions Court upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision, holding that the appeal filed by the revision applicant challenging the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate in the application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 lacked merit.
The High Court upheld the findings of domestic violence, and rejected the contentions that there was no police complaints and no medical record. It highlighted that it is not necessary that acts of domestic violence are substantiated by documentary evidence like medical records or police reports, while observing that, "In cases of domestic violence, it is not necessary that the acts complained of are required to be substantiated by documentary evidence in form of medical records or police reports. It is well known that as the marriage is subsisting, more often than not there is no police complaint filed and the physical abuse may not be to such an extent so as to require hospitalization, in which case the medical record would substantiate the abuse. It needs to be noted that although the provisions of Cr.P.C govern the proceedings, the remedies are civl remedies and the usual standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to criminal offence is not required to be applied... It is well known that abuse in a matrimonial relationship usually occurs within four walls of the house and is confined to the two parties. It is very rarely that such incidents occur in presence of eye witnesses and the evidence has to be accordingly assessed."
Subsequently, the Court also refused to interfere with the Trial Court's findings regarding the quantum of compensation.
Resultantly, the revision application was dismissed.
Appearances:
Applicant: Counsels Vikramaditya Deshmukh, Sapana Rachure
Cause Title: Kaushal Arvind Thakker vs Jyoti Kaushal Thakker & Anr.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
