The single-judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mrs. Nandita Sarkar Vs Tilak Sarkar & Ors held that Domestic Violence includes economic abuse. The deprivation of the petitioner of any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law- is also Domestic Violence.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized according to the special marriage act, of 1954. After the marriage, all the ornaments and other valuable articles which were gifted by the parents and parental relations of the petitioner as well as the other gifted items were kept at the in-law’s house of the petitioner under the custody of the opposite parties. After a few days of the marriage, the petitioner got to know that her husband was not physically fit and was addicted to alcohol with other bad habits. The petitioner tried her level best to restrain her husband from taking alcohol but the same was in vain. Finally, the husband of the petitioner expired on 29.10.2010. Even, the opposite party blamed her for the death of her husband and forced her to leave the matrimonial home on the very next day of her husband’s death.
When the opposing parties failed to return the streedhan articles, the petitioner was forced to launch a criminal complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Following the filing of the criminal case and the Magistrate's ruling, several objects were recovered from the homes of the opposing parties Nos. 1 and 2.
The petitioner filed an application for monetary relief before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (PWDV Act) against the opposing parties. The petitioner has filed an application for interim monitory relief and interim residency under Section 23 of the (PWDV) Act.
Contentions:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial house due to the yielding behaviour of the opposing parties and other in-laws, who accused her of being responsible for her husband's death. The petitioner is now living with her at her father's house, thanks to her father's generosity. She didn't have enough money to live on. The petitioner has never received any significant relief or assistance from the opposing parties. She had no other choice but to file an application before the Learned Magistrate, requesting substantial relief under the provisions of the PWDV Act. It was further submitted that the observation of the Learned Court below regarding the point that the widowed daughter-in-law is not entitled to get monetary relief from her parents-in-law, is not a basis on the proper knowledge of the law.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Satish Chandra Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, Kamatchi Vs. Lakshminaraynan, and Krishna Bhattacharya Vs. Sarathi Chowdhury.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contended that the petitioner has failed to prove the conditions set out in Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 for which the petitioner is not at all entitled to get maintenance from her father-in-law. It was further contended that the petitioner also failed to substantiate any "expenses incurred" or losses experienced under Section 20 of the PWDV Act. As a result, she is not entitled to monetary relief.
Court’s Observation:
The Hon’ble Court held that Domestic Violence has been defined U/s 3 of the PWDV Act. Domestic Violence includes economic abuse. The deprivation of the petitioner of any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law- is also Domestic Violence. In this case, it was the fact that the petitioner was deprived of her Stridhan articles for a long which were under the custody of the opposite parties. This fact tantamounts to Domestic Violence. Furthermore, the petitioner who is a widow has no independent income. She was residing at her father’s home at the mercy of her father. The day-by-day expenses of livelihood of the petitioner were not a deniable factor. She was only to lay her hand to her father to meet the daily expenses. Thus, the circumstances incurred and the loss suffered by the petitioner was proved from the facts and circumstances of this case.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was allowed.
Case Title: Mrs. Nandita Sarkar Vs Tilak Sarkar & Ors
Coram: Justice Subhendu Samanta
Case No: C.R.R. No. – 1857 of 2018 With C.R.R. 1858 of 2018
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Subir Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Sandip Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Ms. Ruxmini Basu Roy, Adv.
Advocates for the Party: Mr. Manjit Sing, Adv., Mr. G.Sing, Adv, Mr. Abhisekh Bagal, Adv., Mr. Biswajit Mal, Adv., Mr. R.K. Sing, Adv
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
