Introduction
Judge: Hon’ble ASJ Sameer Ansar
This case concerns an appeal under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where the Sessions Court in Mumbai enhanced the compensation awarded to a woman survivor of 20 years of domestic violence. The Magistrate had earlier awarded ₹5 lakhs as compensation and ₹1 lakh as monthly maintenance. The wife sought enhancement, citing the immense wealth of her husband’s family and the extent of domestic abuse suffered. The Sessions Court enhanced the compensation to ₹1 crore and the maintenance to ₹1.5 lakhs per month.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 12 – Application to Magistrate
- Section 20 – Monetary reliefs
- Section 22 – Compensation and damages
- Section 23 – Power to grant interim and ex parte orders
Facts of the Case
The couple was married on 12 December 1997 and lived together until November 2016.The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act alleging:
- Physical and mental abuse
- Economic abuse and humiliation
- Assaults by the husband and in-laws
- Financial deprivation despite the family's affluence
She alleged sustained domestic violence for over 20 years.The Magistrate awarded her ₹5 lakhs compensation and ₹1 lakh/month maintenance. The wife appealed for enhancement, and the husband and his parents challenged the very grant of compensation and maintenance.
Issues
- Whether the compensation of ₹5 lakhs awarded by the Magistrate was sufficient in light of the nature and duration of domestic violence?
- Whether the complainant was entitled to enhanced monthly maintenance?
- Whether domestic violence was proved against the husband and/or his parents?
- Whether the complainant’s earning capacity could disentitle her from maintenance?
Contentions of the Petitioner
She suffered prolonged physical, emotional, and economic abuse. Her husband and his family are immensely wealthy (‘crorepatis’) with multiple properties and businesses. She was made a namesake director in a company and used to sign documents without involvement or knowledge. Despite giving birth to three children (two sons and one daughter), she was taunted and tortured, especially after the birth of a daughter. She solely bore the expenses of her daughter, as the husband alienated the sons from her. The ₹5 lakh compensation was grossly inadequate for the 20 years of suffering.
Contentions of the Respondents
Denied all allegations of abuse and assault. Argued that the wife did not provide specific dates or reasons for alleged assaults. Claimed she was a Textile Engineer, hence capable of earning. Denied financial stability and claimed they were not in a sound financial position. Contended that the in-laws were not involved in any abuse.
Court’s Analysis
The Magistrate’s award of ₹5 lakhs was deemed meagre. The husband failed to prove financial hardship. Evidence showed that he purchased property worth over ₹1 crore in 2012 and currently runs a profitable elevator company. Held to be part of a wealthy family ('crorepatis'). Compensation must reflect the standard of living and long-term suffering endured by the wife. The wife’s testimony was found to be unshaken and credible. Physical and economic abuse by the husband was established. Court accepted that exact dates of assault aren’t expected to be remembered due to the prolonged nature and private setting of the abuse. Domestic violence not proven against the in-laws due to lack of specific evidence. Rejected husband’s claim that wife’s earning capacity disentitles her. Observed that capacity to earn ≠ actual earning or forfeiture of right to maintenance. Minor daughter is also entitled to support and equal standard of living.
Conclusion
Compensation enhanced from ₹5 lakhs to ₹1 crore. Monthly maintenance enhanced from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakhs (for wife and daughter). Domestic violence proven against husband; not against in-laws. The court reiterated the right of a woman subjected to abuse to live with dignity, financial independence, and the standard of living enjoyed by her husband.
