Domestic Violence Does Not Depend On Its Severity For Purpose Of Proceeding Under The Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench has held that domestic violence does not depend on its severity for the purpose of proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A Single Bench of Justice R.M. Joshi observed, “Learned Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court has held that it is meager domestic violence. Provisions of the Act however do not differentiate or determines degrees of domestic violence. A domestic violence does not depend on its severity for the purpose of proceeding under the Act. Any women who proves that she has suffered domestic violence at the hands of Respondent, the degree of the said violence becomes immaterial.”
The Bench said that as far as the order of maintenance is concerned, it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife unless she is able to maintain herself.
Advocate C.C. Deshpande appeared for the petitioner i.e., the wife while Advocate A.S. Savale appeared for the respondents i.e., the husband and his family members.
Factual Background -
The petitioner/wife filed a plea being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. A marriage took place between the petitioner/wife and the respondent no. 1/husband and it was the second marriage of both. It was the case of the petitioner that her husband behaved indecently with her and caused sexual harassment.
It was further alleged that her husband made allegations against her son that he behaved with his daughter. The petitioner claimed that on account of said ill-treatment, she left her matrimonial home and since then is residing with her mother. An application was, therefore, filed before the JMFC under the Domestic Violence Act whereby the same was allowed. However, the Additional Sessions Judge reversed the said order.
The High Court in the above context noted, “In the light of these facts, it is relevant to take note as to what amounts to economic abuse. Section 3(I)(iv) of Act provides that deprivation of any economic or financial resources to which women is entitled under any law or customs, whether payable under order of Court or otherwise or which is required out of necessity amount to economic abuse.”
The Court further noted that apart from emotional and physical abuse, the petitioner clearly made out a case of economic abuse at the hands of her husband and thus, there cannot be any reason or justification to deny relief of maintenance to her.
“Appellate Court has held that it is not the case of domestic violence, however, it is the case of disputes with regard to the children. Apparently, while making such observation the Court has fell in error in ignoring definition of Domestic Violence, which not only refers to the actual act of emotional or physical injury but any act which tends to do so, is also covered”, held the Court.
The Court said that there is no doubt that the conduct of the husband has led to causing economic abuse of the petitioner.
“Both Courts, therefore, have committed error in holding that it is meager domestic violence committed against Petitioner. … It is not case of Respondent that Petitioner is employed and can maintain herself. Even if it is accepted that the Petitioner is qualified women, still there is no reason to hold at this stage that she did not try to secure employment. It is always open for the Petitioner to explain during trial the circumstances in which she remained unemployed. To accept the submissions of Counsel for the Respondents made relying the judgment of this Court as well as judgment of Delhi High Court would amount to turning blind eye to the ground realities of the life”, observed the Court.
The Court further said that it is a time when highly qualified persons find it difficult to secure employment owing to the issue of unemployment and that if such a view is adopted then in no case any woman would ever be entitled to seek any maintenance which would frustrate the very purpose of enactment of the Act.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea, set aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, and confirmed the order of the JMFC.
Cause Title- Amruta Deepal Gohil v. Deepak Bhagwat Gohil & Ors.
