The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 13th March 2023 passed in PWDVA Appeal by Learned Sessions Court, Aurangabad setting aside the order dated 08th December 2022 passed in PWDVA Application by the learned JMFC. The Court observed that when any woman proves that she suffered domestic violence at the hands of Respondent, the degree of the said violence becomes immaterial.
Brief Facts:
Marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 02.07.2017 at Lonavala, Pune. It is the case of the Petitioner-wife that Respondent No. 1 husband behaved indecently with her and caused sexual harassment. It is also stated that he had made allegations against the son of Petitioner for misbehaving with his daughter. Petitioner claimed that on account of said ill-treatment, she left her matrimonial home on 31.12.2017 and since then she is residing with her mother. With these averments, an application was filed before learned JMFC under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and interim maintenance was prayed therein.
After hearing the parties, learned JMFC passed an order, with the observation that there are meager allegations about domestic violence of the Applicant by Respondent No. 1 and the real dispute is about their children. Learned JMFC however held that maintenance is required to be provided to the Petitioner. In the Appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the said order with the observation that omnibus allegations are made against the husband which does not constitute domestic violence, and also considering the delay, the Petitioner is not entitled to interim maintenance.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court has committed a serious error in reversing the order passed by the Learned Magistrate of directing interim maintenance. According to him, there is total disregard for the provisions of the Act enacted to provide effective protection of women's rights against domestic violence. He submitted that there is an error committed by the Appellate Court in holding that on account of delay and for the alleged inconsistencies in the statement, no domestic violence can be said to have been committed against Petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner suppressed the material facts in the beginning such as non-disclosure of her educational qualifications and her employment. It was contended that even no attempt to get employment is sufficient reason to deny her maintenance. It was further canvassed that unless the domestic violence is established, Petitioner is not entitled to get any maintenance.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the object and reason for the said enactment is to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters incidental and connected thereto. The Courts cannot restrict the interpretation of the same by giving restricted meaning to it. The definition of domestic violence is not restricted to physical or sexual abuse but also emotional and economic abuse of women amounts to domestic violence.
The Court observed that apart from emotional and physical abuse, Petitioner herein has made out a case of economic abuse at the hands of her husband. Thus, there cannot be any reason or justification to deny the relief of maintenance to her. Further, the Court said, the Act does not differentiate or determine degrees of domestic violence. Domestic violence does not depend on its severity to proceed under the Act. When any woman proves that she has suffered domestic violence at the hands of Respondent, the degree of the said violence becomes immaterial. Both Courts committed an error in holding that it is a meager domestic violence committed against Petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 13.03.2023 is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Amruta Deepak Gohil vs Deepak Bhagwat Gohil & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R.M. Joshi
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 490 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. C. C. Deshpande
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. A. S. Savale
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
