Domestic violence case: Bombay HC upholds order directing man to pay ₹3 cr compensation for calling wife ‘second-hand’

Bombay HC upholds trial court order, tells man to pay ₹3 cr compensation, ₹1.5 lakh monthly maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently upheld a decision of a trial court and directed a man who called his wife ‘second-hand’ to pay compensation of ₹3 crore and monthly maintenance of ₹1.5 lakh under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

In 2017, the husband filed for divorce in the USA, and the wife filed a complaint against him under the Domestic Violence Act in Mumbai. The US court granted the divorce in 2018.

A single-judge bench of justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing a revision application filed by the husband against the sessions court’s order, which dismissed his appeal against the trial court’s ruling.

The couple married in January 1994 in Mumbai and later performed a marriage ceremony in the USA. The duo returned to the city in 2005 and shared a house owned by both in Matunga. However, in 2008, due to marital discord, the wife moved to her mother’s house, while the husband relocated to the USA in 2014.

In 2017, the husband filed for divorce in the USA, and the wife filed a complaint against him under the Domestic Violence Act in Mumbai. The US court granted the divorce in 2018.

She further recounted instances of verbal degradation and physical violence, to the point where her husband subjected her to relentless accusations of infidelity and having improper relationships with her family members.

The wife disclosed another incident which happened in November 1999, when the Texas police arrested her husband for physically assaulting her.

The abuse didn’t cease upon their relocation to India in 2005. Instead, it persisted, manifesting in episodes of verbal tirades and emotional manipulation. The wife’s testimony painted a chilling portrait of her life at her matrimonial home in Meru Heights, Matunga, where she endured a relentless barrage of insults and threats.

In May 2008, the husband’s violence escalated to a terrifying level, when he attempted to suffocate his wife with a pillow. Feared for her life, she sought refuge with her mother.

The husband, however, contended that the Domestic Violence (DV) proceedings were initiated merely as a retaliatory measure against the divorce proceedings initiated by him. He asserts that this is evident from the timeline, as the DV complaint was filed after receiving a summons from the USA Court for the divorce proceedings. He argues that the prayers in the DV application primarily focus on regaining possession of the ‘Meru Heights’ flat, indicating a strategic move rather than genuine concern for domestic violence.

Despite the arguments, the trial court directed the husband to provide alternative accommodation to the wife and pay a monthly rent of ₹75,000. The trial court also awarded ₹3 crore as compensation and ₹1.5 lakh as monthly maintenance.

The husband challenged the order of the trial court before the sessions court, which rejected his challenge. Subsequently, he filed a revision plea before the high court.

While upholding the compensation of ₹3 crore, the high court observed that the act of DV affected the self-worth of the wife considering their social standing and education levels. The court underscored the importance of recognising the cumulative effects of domestic violence on victims, regardless of their social status.

“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 greatly felt by Respondent No. 1 (Wife) as it would affect her worth.” the order states.