[Domestic Violence Act] Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crores Compensation For Woman Whose Husband Called Her “Second-Hand”

The Bombay High Court recently upheld a trial court's order directing a man to pay Rs. 3 crores compensation to his ex-wife for various acts of domestic violence including calling her “Second Hand” as her engagement with another person was called off.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected the man's revision application against the orders observing –

“Although the abuse will necessarily result in mental torture and emotional distress for the aggrieved person, the gravity will differ from person to person. In the present case admittedly both the parties are well educated and highly placed in their workplace and in social life. That being the social standing, the acts of domestic violence would be greater felt by the Respondent No 1 as it would affect her self worth”

The applicant-husband, a citizen of the USA, challenged the order of the sessions court and magistrate court which had ruled in favour of his wife, also a US citizen currently residing in Mumbai. The dispute revolved around allegations of domestic violence and the claim for maintenance and compensation by the respondent-wife.

The couple got married in 1994, relocated to the USA, and returned to Mumbai in 2005 and started residing in a flat in Matunga. However, in 2014, the husband returned to the USA without the wife. In 2017, he initiated divorce proceedings against his wife in the US, which came after the wife lodged a domestic violence complaint against him in Mumbai. In 2018, a US court granted the husband's divorce petition.

The wife, in her application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleged that her husband subjected her to physical and emotional violence. She alleged that during their honeymoon, the applicant abused her, and this continued in the USA and India, including physical assaults and accusations of having illicit relationships with other men, including her own brothers.

She also alleged that her husband and in-laws unlawfully withheld her streedhan, which included jewellery gifted to her by her in-laws.

The trial court took into account her evidence affidavit giving a detailed account of various incidents of physical and verbal abuse as well as witness testimonies of her family members. The metropolitan magistrate partly allowed her application, granting her compensation of Rs. 3 Crores, monthly maintenance of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and return of her 'streedhan'. It rejected her plea for possession of their Matunga flat but directed the husband to provide alternate accommodation or pay Rs. 75,000 per month as rent.

The sessions court dismissed the husband's appeal against the magistrate's order. Thus, the husband approached the High Court challenging these orders.

The High Court considered the evidence and upheld the trial court's findings. It held that the DV Act applied as the acts of domestic violence occurred in India during the couple's stay from 2006 to 2008. Further, the court relied on another single bench judgment of the HC which held that Indian courts can entertain complaint against domestic violence committed abroad.

The High Court found no fault in the trial court's finding of domestic violence and economic abuse. It held that the divorce decree from the USA did not preclude the wife from seeking relief under the DV Act as the application was filed before the divorce decree was granted.

“The domestic violence also includes an aspect of economic abuse, which also takes within its fold the deprivation of stridhan of aggrieved person. Considering that it has come on record that the stridhan of respondent no.1 is in bank locker as well as respondent no.1 has been deprived of the use of shared household and no provision was made for the maintenance of respondent no.1 till the adjudication of application, the acts of domestic violence continued from 1994 to 2017. The trial Court has come to a finding based on the discussion that there were continuous acts of domestic violence from 1994 to 2017, which cannot be faulted with”, the court observed.

The amicus curiae justified the quantum of compensation by pointing out that since 2008, the wife has not received maintenance and even if the sum of Rs 1,50,000/ per month is considered for this period, it would amount to Rs. 2.7 crores which is just, fair and reasonable. The court did not find any fault with this formula used by the amicus, considering the facts of the case.

Thus, the High Court upheld the magistrate court's and sessions court's order. However, it continued the interim stay on those orders for two weeks at the request of the husband's counsel.

Case no. – Crim. Revision Application No. 234 of 2023

Case Title – ABC v. XYZ

Click Here To Read/Download Order