Economic abuse through retention of stridhan constitutes domestic violence, warranting protection orders and maintenance under the Act.

ORDER

The revision challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, in M.C.No.120 of 2015, whereby (a) protection and residence orders were granted to the aggrieved wife, (b) return of stridhan/seervarisai articles was directed, (c) monetary relief by way of maintenance to the wife and minor son was awarded prospectively, with arrears from 13.07.2015, and (d) compensation was awarded for the domestic violence proved on record.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in M.C.No.120 of 2015.

3. Factual Matrix:

The petitioner-wife and the first respondent-husband were married on 11.02.2010 at Sakaya Matha Community Hall, Palakkarai, Tiruchirappalli. At the wedding, as pleaded by the wife, the husband received from her parents 13 sovereigns of gold jewels and household items as dowry; post-marriage, the petitioner and the respondents cohabited as a joint family. A male child named Adamspious was born to the couple. The petitioner alleges that despite her harmonious conduct and cooperation in household duties, the respondents treated her as a servant and subjected her to cruelty. It is alleged the first respondent-husband was habitually intoxicated, remaining under the influence of alcohol most of the time. When she raised concerns about her husband’s conduct with respondents 2 and 3, she was warned that she will have to leave to her parental home, if she could not continue living with her husband. It was told by the respondents that they intended to arrange a favourable marriage for their son, which plan (as the petitioner claims) was frustrated because of the petitioner, and hence the respondents 2 and 3 intensified the cruelty towards her. During her pregnancy, the third respondent demanded Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner's brother, who was residing abroad; on expressing inability, she was threatened to leave the house and the first respondent allegedly threatened to marry another woman. She further contended that on one occasion when she sought hospitalisation during pregnancy, her husband (as alleged) took her to the bus stand and abandoned her there, compelling her to move to her parental home. Repeated phone calls for being taken back were allegedly disconnected; even during and after pregnancy, proper care was allegedly not provided; her brother only took responsibility and maintained her. She alleges that her husband is employed at the Tiruchirappalli Arms/Gun Factory earning Rs.40,000/- per month and has income from 15 acres of agricultural land at Kumbakkudi, nevertheless, he failed to support her. After alleged eviction, no financial support was provided. Her husband allegedly instigated the respondents 4 to 6 to ask additional dowry. It is also alleged that, 13 sovereigns of gold and household items worth Rs.3,00,000/- are with her husband. She claims right of residence in Door No.53, Meelur Keelatheru, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli as the lawful wife.

4. Reliefs Sought by the wife in M.C.No.120 of 2015 are as follows:

(i) Protection order against domestic cruelty.

(ii) Maintenance: Rs.40,000/- per month.

(iii) Compensation: Rs.10,00,000/- for damages due to domestic violence.

(iv) Residence/anti-eviction injunction in the shared household.

5. Trial Court Proceedings & Verdict in M.C. No.120/2015

(a) Evidence

(i) Wife was examined as P.W.1; Ex.P1–P5 marked; during cross of R.W.1 (3^rd respondent), Ex.P6–P7 marked. The 3^rd respondent is examined as R.W.1; no documents from defence; during cross of P.W.1, Ex.R1–R3 got marked.

(b) Issues framed:

(i)