By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

IN THE Judgement of the case- Amruta Deepak Gohil (36) v. Deepak Bhagwat Gohil (45) and his parents Bhagwat and Suman, delivered on June 12,2023, Justice R M Joshi has, at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, has held in very clear terms that provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 do not differentiate or determine degrees of domestic violence. The HC has stated that “a domestic violence does not depend on its severity for the purpose of proceeding under the Act. Any woman, who proves that she has suffered domestic violence at the hands of respondent, the degree of the said violence becomes immaterial”. Therefore, both the Courts below (the Magistrate and the appellate court) have committed error in holding that it is a meager domestic violence committed against the petitioner. The object and reasons for this Act of 2005 is to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution to the victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters incidental and connected thereto. The intention of Legislature, therefore, is to provide for protection of women who are victims of violence within family and also for matters connected/incidental thereto. The Courts, therefore, cannot restrict the interpretation of the same by giving restricted meaning thereto.

 

Section 3 defines domestic violence. For the purpose of this Act, any act of omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it harms endangers mental or physical health of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing of physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and also economic abuse. Explanation I (iv) defines economic abuse which includes deprivation of all or any economic abuse or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled to under any law. The definition of domestic violence, therefore, is not restricted to the physical or sexual abuse but also emotional and economic abuse to women amounts to domestic violence. Moreover, actual emotional or physical harm is not contemplated but even act tends to do so is (also) squarely covered by this definition. Apart from the fact that the definition of domestic violence is inclusive and clear, appropriate interpretation thereof must be given keeping in mind aims and objects of the statute, keeping in mind relevant provisions of the Act, application filed therein needs to be considered. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner and the first respondent are Hindus and their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites. Under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, it is obligation of the husband to maintain his wife during her lifetime. Sub-section (2) provides that wife is entitled to receive maintenance even in the event she lives separately and clause (g) provides that she can live separately justifying reasonable cause. It is only in the eventuality mentioned in section 18(3), wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. Sub-section (3) has no application to this case.

 

In this case, it is clear from the contentions of both sides that the petitioner has not left matrimonial home of her own accord but there were peculiar circumstances which compelled her to go to her mother’s place. It is specifically averred in the application as to the treatment received by her, at the hands of her husband. Thus, there cannot be any reason or justification to deny relief of maintenance to her. It was held by the Appellate Court that it is not the case of domestic violence, however, it is the case of disputes with regard to the children. Apparently, while making such observation the Court erred by ignoring definition of domestic violence, which not only refers to the actual act of emotional or physical injury but also covers any act which tends to do so. Even assuming that there was dispute between husband and wife over the issue of alleged conduct of son of petitioner with daughter of respondent, but eventually said dispute has led to compel petitioner to leave matrimonial home. On one hand Appellate Court has taken cognisance of the fact that the petitioner has belatedly approached the Court for the relief, however, at the same time, it is conveniently ignored that even the respondent-husband has lodged complaint against wife after a period of one year. It does not stand to any reason as to why a father would wait for such long period to take action in regard to such serious matter concerning his daughter. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to indicate that after the petitioner left the matrimonial home in the circumstances any attempt was made by the respondent to resume cohabitation. It is only after the petitioner approached to the women protection cell, the respondent appears to have shown his willingness to cohabit with the petitioner. There is no doubt that the conduct of respondent has led to causing of economic abuse of the petitioner.

 

The Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court has held that it is domestic violence meager in nature. As far as the order of maintenance is concerned, it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife unless she is able to maintain herself. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioner is employed and can maintain herself. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner is qualified woman, still there is no reason to hold at this stage that she did not try to secure employment. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs on July 2, 2017 at Lonavala, Pune. It was second marriage of both. It has been the petitioner’s claim that she was mal-treated hence was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to misbehavior and harassment on Deember31, 2017 and since then she is residing with her mother. As a result of discussion, in the order, the HC has quashed and set aside the impugned judgement and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on March 13, 2023.