Financial Deprivation Amounts To Economic Abuse Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Justice MG Giratkar of the Nagpur bench, was hearing a criminal revision application filed by one Sapna Patel, the 38-year-old widow of Nilesh Patel, who passed away on March 27, 2010.

Case Background

Nilesh was looking after the family business of Patel Mangal Karyalaya, a marriage hall, before his death. That was his only source of income. He left behind his wife and son.

The joint family began with Shantubhai Patel, Nilesh's father and Ishwarbhai Patel. Both had two sons each. After Nilesh's death, his cousin brother Pravin Patel (son of Ishwarbhai) started looking after Patel Mangal Karyalaya. Thus, Nilesh's widow Sapna was left with no source of income. So, she filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli recorded the evidence of both the parties and partly allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to restore the possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya, Gadchiroli to the applicant Sapna Patel within a period of one month from the date of the order dated October 16, 2014. However, her claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/­ came to be rejected. While Pravin Patel challenged the said judgment in an appeal, Sapna also challenged the decision not to grant her maintenance. Both the appeals were dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge.

Submissions and Judgement

Pravin's advocate SV Shirpurkar argued that Patel Mangal Karyalaya was constructed by Pravin and it was his own property. Therefore, it could not have been restored to Sapna. He further argued that no 'domestic relationship' existed between Sapna and Praveen at the time the revision application was filed.

Sapna's counsel VN Morande submitted that after Nilesh's death, there was family meeting of all the relatives. In the said meeting, till the partition of joint family property, Pravin agreed to maintain Nilesh's family, Morande said.

After examining the statements of witnesses and submissions from both parties, Court observed-

"The applicant had lived together with respondent No.1 as family members in a joint family. Therefore, there is a domestic relationship between the applicant and the respondents."

Justice Giratkar then referred to clause (iv)(a) under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act which says that deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom … is economic abuse.

"In the present case, the applicant was having only source of income from Patel Mangal Karyalaya during the lifetime of her husband. After the death of her husband, respondent No.1 took over the possession of said Patel Mangal Karyalaya and deprived the applicant from financial resources from Patel Mangal Karyalaya. Therefore, it amounts to economic abuse."

Court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another, wherein the apex court held that "domestic violence apart from "physical abuse" and "sexual abuse", "verbal and emotional abuse" and "economic abuse" also constitute "domestic violence"."

"In the present case, the applicant is suffering from economic abuse at the hands of respondent No.1" noted Justice Giratkar.

Thus, Court quashed and set aside the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhchiroli and held that the judgment of JMFC, Gadhchiroli was perfectly legal and correct. It was also noted that since the possession of the said marriage hall is being restored with the applicant Sapna, there was no need to grant maintenance.

Click here to download the judgment