Financial deprivation amounts to domestic violence, says Bombay HC

In his order, justice MG Giratkar said the applications under the provisions of DV Act are in addition and not in derogation of any other law in force.

Economic abuse or financial deprivation also amounts to domestic violence under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, the Bombay high court (HC) held recently.

Economic abuse or financial deprivation also amounts to domestic violence under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, the Bombay high court (HC) held recently.

In his order, justice MG Giratkar said the applications under the provisions of DV Act are in addition and not in derogation of any other law in force. Referring to a 2016 Supreme Court ruling, the judge reiterated that even if applications of a similar nature are pending before another court, the aggrieved woman “cannot be precluded from taking recourse to remedy provided under DV Act.”

The HC struck down an April 18, 2015 order of the additional sessions judge at Gadchiroli that had reversed an order passed by the local judicial magistrate in October 2014. The magistrate had allowed an application filed by a local resident, Sapna Patel, widow of a local businessman, complaining that a marriage hall – a joint family property – that her deceased husband used to run had been taken over by other members of the family after her husband’s death. She said she had no other source of income. Accepting the woman’s plea of economic abuse seeking action under the DV Act, the magistrate had directed the husband’s family to hand over possession of the marriage hall to the woman, so as to enable her to earn livelihood out of its income.

On an appeal filed by the Patel family members, who claimed the woman was “indirectly seeking partition”, the additional sessions judge reversed the order. The husband’s family had also said that if the woman wanted to seek partition, she had to file a partition suit. After this, the woman approached the HC.

Challenging the woman’s appeal in the HC, the husband’s family raised several technical objections to the woman’s complaint. Justice Giratkar turned down all of them.

The judge also said that the woman’s complaint could not be turned down merely because the marriage hall was a joint family property and the woman had an alternate remedy of seeking partition of the joint family properties.