High court upholds Rs 3 crore compensation to woman in domestic violence case

The couple married in 1994.

Mumbai:

The Bombay High Court has upheld a trial court order directing a husband to pay compensation of Rs 3 crore and alimony of Rs 1.5 lakh per month to his estranged wife, observing a factor that can be taken into account while deciding the amount to be paid. Is the behavior that affects a victim experiencing domestic violence.

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, in her March 22 order in the domestic violence case, noted that the compensation was not only compensation for the woman’s physical injuries but also mental torture and emotional distress. compensate.

“For obvious reasons there cannot be a straight-forward formula that applies to everyone, and the amount of compensation will vary on a case-by-case basis. I think one of the factors that can be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation is the impact on the Domestic violence committed by the victim,” the High Court observed.

Judge Sharmila held that the trial court’s decision was based on a discussion that domestic violence continued between 1994 and 2017 and was beyond reproach.

The couple tied the knot in Mumbai in January 1994 and later moved to the United States, where they held another wedding.

In 2005, the two returned to Mumbai and started living in a house they owned together. However, in 2008, the wife moved to her mother’s house, and the husband returned to the United States in 2014.

In July 2017, the woman filed a case against her husband in the city magistrate’s court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA). The woman claims her husband called her a “second hand” during their honeymoon over her previous broken engagement.

The woman claimed that in the United States she was subjected to constant domestic violence, including questions about her character, false accusations of inappropriate relationships with other men, and beatings until she confessed.

The trial court noted the woman’s evidence regarding incidents of domestic violence, corroborated by her mother, brother and uncle.

In an order passed in January 2023, the trial court held that the woman had suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband and directed him to pay Rs 3 crore as compensation to her.

It ordered the man to find a suitable residence for his wife – a residential apartment with a carpet area of ​​at least 1,000 sq ft – in Mumbai’s Dadar area or pay a rent of Rs 75,000.

He was also directed to return all jewelery (‘streethan’) and other items to the woman and pay monthly maintenance fee of Rs 1,50,000 to her.

Aggrieved by the trial court’s order, the man filed a revision application in the High Court.

The single judge, while upholding the trial court’s order, said compensation would be awarded for the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct, including mental torture and emotional distress.

They believe that although abuse will inevitably cause mental torture and emotional distress to the victim, the severity will vary from person to person.

“In this case, it is undeniable that both parties are well educated and enjoy high status in the workplace and social life. Given the social status, an act of domestic violence can have a great impact on the woman as it affects her self-worth,” the court noted.

The High Court said the woman suffered physical, financial, mental and emotional abuse and had to live with her mother for nine years. The husband left the woman and went to the United States without providing her with any living security.

The judge noted that the magistrate considered all the facts and circumstances in awarding compensation and took into account the client’s circumstances and income in determining the amount of compensation.

The High Court stated that the trial court concluded based on discussions that domestic violence continued beyond reproach from 1994 to 2017.

“I do not see any grounds for this court to exercise revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The revision application is dismissed,” the bench added.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)