Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., elaborated on the aspect of economic abuse in term of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Factual Matrix
Wife had presented an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein she referred to several incidents of domestic violence against her husband.
Further, she alleged that her husband subjected her to harassment and torture for dowry and since she was unable to meet his demand, she was physically assaulted by her husband on various dates. Gradually he developed an extramarital affair. When the wife raised a protest against his conduct he assaulted her.
Trial Court found the wife to be entitled to a protection order, residence order and monetary relief, respondents were directed to make payment of Rs 2000/- per month as rent for accommodation to the aggrieved and further payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as monetary relief in the form of maintenance.
Additional Sessions Judge also partly allowed the appeal of the husband, his mother, brother and sister, by which the husband was solely proved to have committed domestic violence upon his wife and others were discharged from the liabilities.
In the present revision petition, husband has challenged the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Core Issue agitated by the husband’s counsel:
Relief under the DV Act had been provided to the wife in absence of any proof of domestic violence.
Under Section 12 of the DV Act only the aggrieved person or a protection officer appointed under the DV Act or any other person on behalf the aggrieved person may present an application to the magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.
Allegation of domestic violence is a sine qua non for pursuing a petition under the DV Act.
Further, Court observed that under Section 3 of the DV Act which defines domestic violence, ‘economic abuse’ is a form of domestic violence.
Section 3 relates to ‘economic abuse’ which includes deprivation of all or any economic financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise.
Bench held that in the present matter, wife is obviously legally entitled to maintenance allowance from her husband who is a government employee since she made a good case of justifying why she was living separately.
Denial of maintenance to wife would definitely cause ‘economic abuse’ within the meaning of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, therefore no infirmity in the impugned judgment was found.
Court directed that the monetary relief shall be paid by the husband by depositing the same in the wife’s savings bank account. The Family Court will determine the mode of payment of the outstanding arrear till 31-01-2021 after issuing notice to the parties and hearing them in person.
If the husband fails to pay the arrear, the same shall be deducted from his salary and paid to the wife.
In view of the above. Petition was dismissed. [Ramendra Kishore Bhattacharjee v. Madhurima Bhattacharjee, 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 79, decided on 10-02-2021]
Advocates for the parties:
For the Appellant: Mr B. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr S. Debnath, Addl. PP Mr Raju Datta
[…] Tri HC | How are ‘economic abuse’ and ‘domestic abuse’ synonymous? HC explains in light of S… […]