Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vinay Joshi, J
Rahmat Ali Khan Walli Mohd Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shabana Begum Rehmatali Khan – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 206/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.M. Nafde
For the Respondents: Mr.P.D. Randive
Economic abuse is recognized as a form of domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, justifying maintenance even in the absence of physical abuse.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Quashing of judgment and order under D.V. Act - Petitioners challenging the Appellate Court’s decision for maintenance despite no established domestic violence - The Appellate Court did find economic abuse, justifying maintenance. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 9)
(B) Maintenance - The criteria for granting maintenance include the economic condition of the aggrieved person and obligation of the husband - The court upheld the maintenance awards as reasonable given the situation.
Facts of the case:
Respondent-wife filed for relief under the D.V. Act which was initially dismissed by the Magistrate for lack of evidence of domestic violence but later overturned by the Appellate Court noting economic abuse and granting maintenance of Rs.2000/- for the wife and child.
Findings of Court:
The finding on economic abuse was upheld, maintaining the order of maintenance as it is a necessary obligation under the D.V. Act.
Issues: The core issue was whether maintenance could be granted without establishing physical domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that economic abuse is valid under the D.V. Act and highlighted the burden of proof regarding the husband's income rests with him.
Result: Criminal Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenged maintenance granted despite no established domestic violence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition was upheld. (Para 6) |
| 3. economic abuse is valid under d.v. act, justifying maintenance orders. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.203/2016, petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the said judgment and order, stating it to be unreasonable, illegal and unsustainable in law.
3. Petitioners have been arrayed as respondents in Criminal Application No.2598/2014 filed by respondent – wife in the capacity of aggrieved person. Wife has filed this application before the Magistrate in terms of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V.Act), seeking multiple reliefs, as available under the D.V.Act. Petitioners/respondents have resisted said application denying the act of domestic violence, as alleged. The learned Magistrate held that applicant – wife failed to establish that she suffered domestic violence at the hands of respondents and accordingly dismissed the application vide order dated 01.10.2016.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, wife has filed Criminal Appeal No.203/2016 in terms of Section 29 of the D.V. Act, claiming reliefs as sought in her application before the Magistrate. The Appellate Court upheld that the wife failed to establish physical abuse, however, by holding that she has established economic abuse, passed an order of maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month for her and an equal amount for her male minor child.
5. The learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that when both the Courts below have held that the wife failed to establish domestic violence, the Appellate Court fell in error in granting maintenance. It is submitted that unless wife proves her case of domestic violence as an aggrieved person, she is not entitled to any relief as provided under the provisions of D.V. Act. In support of said contention, petitioners have relied on decisions of this Court in cases of – (1) Prakash Kumar Singhee .vrs. Amrapali Singhee - 2018 [5] Mh.L.J. 665; (2) Gugudas Sanvalo Naik and others .vrs. Saanvi Gurudas Naik and others - 2018 All M.R. (Cri) 2375; (3) Koushik .vrs. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami - 2018 All MR (Cri) 2398; and (4) Vijayanand Dattaram Naik and others .vrs. Smt. Vishranti Vijayanand Naik and others - 2019 All MR (Cri) 3519.There is no dispute that the act of domestic violence is prerequisite for a Magistrate to exercise powers under the D.V. Act for grant of any relief as provided under the Act.
6. The learned Magistrate has held that the applicant has failed to establish the act of domestic violence, however, the said order is reversed by the Appellate Court to the extent that though the wife has failed to establish physical abuse, however, economical abuse has been proved.
7. From perusal of the provisions of the D.V. Act it emerges that it has been enacted for effective protection of rights for women, who are victim of violence of any kind occurred in the family. The enactment is a sort of redressal provided to the aggrieved person, who is or has been in domestic relationship with the spouse. The term ‘domestic violence’ has been widely defined in Section 3 of the D.V. Act. It includes economic abuse also. Any kind of deprivation of aggrieved person of any economic or financial resources would encompass within the term ‘economic abuse’ as defined under Section 3 [d][iv][a] of the D.V. Act.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for wife would submit that any kind of economical abuse has been covered within the term ‘domestic violence’. To support said contention, he has relied on the decisions of this Court in cases of (1) Jayashri Shamshuddin Talapdar .vrs. Samshuddin Karim Talapdar and another - 2018 All MR (Cri) 2305 and
