Woman Married To Gay Man 'Aggrieved Person' Under DV Act, Mumbai Court Upholds Order On Grant Of Maintenance To Wife
Observing that the term 'aggrieved person' under the Domestic Violence Act wouldn't just include a woman who suffers physical abuse but also sexual, verbal and emotional abuse, a sessions court upheld an order directing a 'gay' man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife.Additional Sessions Judge Dr AA Joglekar dismissed the husband's appeal against an order of the magistrate court granting...
Observing that the term 'aggrieved person' under the Domestic Violence Act wouldn't just include a woman who suffers physical abuse but also sexual, verbal and emotional abuse, a sessions court upheld an order directing a 'gay' man to pay maintenance to his estranged wife.
Additional Sessions Judge Dr AA Joglekar dismissed the husband's appeal against an order of the magistrate court granting the wife Rs. 15,000 maintenance.
"Considering the tenor of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act it can be clearly inferred that, the term domestic violence in corporates for a wider scope and it is not at all limited for mere physical injuries or abuse, but the same can also be stretched pertaining to sexual, verbal, emotional and economical abuse."
The court upheld the trial court's observation that any act or conduct of respondent (husband) in violation of the section would naturally come under the purview of domestic violence.
The couple was married in December 2012. It was the woman's case that the husband hadn't consummated their marriage for over six months and she had found him sexting other men. He would return home late from work and he created a fictitious Facebook account and that account "reflects [his] compromising position with other men." Her attempts to consummate their marriage were in vain.
The man on the other hand claimed that his wife neither had proof of his alleged actions nor had he denied her sex. Infact, it was she who refused to keep physical relations with him on the pretext of her examinations. The wife always suspected him.
Significantly, he argued that her allegations of domestic violence were vague as she filed to prove who caused the alleged domestic violence. "Trial Court is in transgression to the very concept of the termed aggrieved person, more especially when the applicant failed to have stated as to who caused domestic violence to her," he argued through a lawyer.
On perusal of the wife's testimonial evidence the court noted that she had accessed the photographs and screenshots of her husband's nudes. "It is evident that, the said contents accessed and retrieved by her from the respondent No.1's mobile phone has naturally caused such trauma, distress and emotional abuse to the applicant," the court said.