Financial deprivation amounts to economic abuse under Domestic Violence Act

The Bombay High Court has held that financial deprivation amounts to economic abuse under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that if a widow in a joint family, who is entitled to financial resources, is deprived of them then it qualifies as economic abuse.

The above-mentioned reasoning was pronounced in Smt. Sapna vs. Shri Pravin Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. (Crl. Rev. App No. 64/2015), pronounced on 25.5.2019.

Challenges

The applicant dead husband was looking after the family business, before his death. That was his only source of income. He left behind his wife, the applicant and son. After applicant’s husband death, his cousin brother started looking after the family business. Thus, the applicant was left with no source of income. So, she filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The Judicial Magistrate, First Class recorded the evidence of both the parties and partly allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to restore the possession of the family business, to the applicant, however, her claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/­ came to be rejected. While Respondent No. 1 challenged the said judgment in an appeal, the Applicant also challenged the decision not to grant her maintenance. Both the appeals were dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge.

Held

The Court observed that 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. The Court 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 the family business during the lifetime of her husband. After the death of her husband, Respondent No.1 took over the possession of family business and deprived the applicant from financial resources. Therefore, it amounts to economic abuse. The Bombay High Court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another 2015(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri), 509), 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. Thus, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge and held that the judgment of JMFC was perfectly legal and correct. It was also noted that since the possession of the said marriage hall is being restored with the applicant, there was no need to grant maintenance.