&w=3840&q=100)
Mumbai court raises domestic violence compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore
A sessions court in Mumbai has significantly increased the compensation awarded to a woman who suffered domestic violence for 20 years — raising it from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore, according to a report by legal news portal Live Law.
The court noted that the woman's husband and his family are 'crorepatis', meaning extremely wealthy, and that the original compensation amount was too low.
In an order passed on May 5, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Ansari stated that the ₹5 lakh compensation set by the Magistrate Court was 'meagre". He observed, 'It is clear that the husband has not been able to prove the fact of he being in dire straits, financially. On the other hand, the material on the record reflects that he and his family are what in common parlance is called 'crorepatis.' The facts of the matter as proved on the record will show that after suffering domestic violence in the nature of beatings, severe assaults, taunts and even financial deprivation in a marriage of almost 20 years, the complainant was forced to approach the court for seeking maintenance, etc. as the last resort. The physical and mental torture as also the sustained emotional distress felt by the complainant while living with the husband can therefore, scarcely be imagined.'
The judge further noted that the husband's wealth was a crucial factor in determining appropriate compensation. He said, 'The fact that the complainant has to now also suffer being estranged from her two sons, as the husband appears to have influenced them against their mother, is also something which cannot be ignored. The husband, though has tried his level best to show that he is not in a good financial situation, has not been successful in proving the said contention. On the other hand, he being in a position to purchase properties worth ₹1 crore in 2012, and presently running an elevator company, will surely be rolling in money. Hence, balancing the scale, I am of the view that the compensation as granted to the wife needs to be enhanced to ₹1 crore.'
Case background
The case involved appeals from both sides: the husband and his parents, and the wife. They were contesting an earlier Metropolitan Magistrate Court order issued on February 18, 2020. The wife had sought an increase in both compensation and her ₹1 lakh monthly maintenance, while the husband challenged both amounts.
In a 70-page order, Judge Ansari recounted that the couple married on December 12, 1997, and lived together until November 2016. The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act that same month, accusing her husband of humiliation, abuse, assault, physical, mental and economic cruelty during more than two decades of marriage.
Wife's testimony against wealthy husband
The wife explained how her husband and in-laws operated several businesses, one of which listed her as a 'namesake' director — she was made to sign documents but had no real role. That company was later sold without her knowledge.
She also said the couple owned several properties, including flats across Maharashtra and villas in Lonavla. According to her, the husband often berated her about spending and even threatened violence if she used extra money for household needs — claims the husband denied.
She further alleged that her husband and in-laws physically assaulted her and never wanted a girl child. Initially, she was taunted for not conceiving; when she became pregnant with triplets, a miscarriage followed due to 'stress' from her in-laws and husband. Even after giving birth to two sons, she faced continued abuse, and her daughter was not accepted by the family — leading her to support her daughter alone.
Court rejects husband's defence
The husband disputed these accusations, including the physical abuse, arguing that his wife failed to provide exact dates of assault.
Rejecting his arguments, Judge Ansari held, 'No wife can be expected to remember the exact dates and exact trivial reasons for her husband assaulting her over a long period of time. No other witnesses can also have been expected to be examined by the complainant on the said aspect, as the incidents of assault had almost always occurred within the four walls of the house. In such circumstances, the mere fact of the complainant not being able to recall the reason for the trivial fights between her and her husband, as also the specific dates on which she had been physically assaulted cannot at all be said to be grounds sufficient to challenge her testimony regarding the same.'
The court found the wife's testimony 'unshaken' regarding most allegations. However, it ruled that she proved domestic violence only by her husband — not her in-laws. The court also determined that the husband committed 'economic abuse.'
Responding to the husband's claim that his wife, a textile engineer, was capable of earning an income, Judge Ansari said: 'Even otherwise, having the capacity to earn by itself, cannot result in the rejection of any claim of maintenance by a complainant who is subjected to domestic violence at the hands of her husband. The question of the complainant's minor daughter being in a position to maintain herself, also does not arise. I am therefore of the clear view that the complainant and her minor daughter are entitled to claim maintenance from the husband. The fact that the husband and his parents had the capacity to spend more than ₹1 crore for purchasing land as also a flat in Kharghar in the year 2012 is a clear reflection of their sound financial status as also the fact of they belonging to the class commonly known as 'crorepatis.' It is therefore, not difficult to imagine their standard of living at all times. This being so and the complainant having been subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the husband, she as also her daughter will be entitled to enjoy the same standard of living as that of the respondents.'
With these observations, Judge Ansari enhanced the compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore and increased monthly maintenance from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakh — for both the wife and the couple's minor daughter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
20 hours ago
- Scroll.in
‘Shows apathy': Allahabad HC raps UP government for delay in disbursing Kumbh stampede compensation
The Allahabad High Court on Friday said that the delay in disbursing compensation to the families of those who died during a stampede at the Maha Kumbh Mela pilgrimage site in Prayagraj showed the Uttar Pradesh government's 'apathy to the plight of the citizens', Live Law reported. A bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Sandeep Jain also directed the state government to furnish details of the deaths and medical handling of those who died or were injured between January 28 and the end of the pilgrimage. The Bharatiya Janata Party government in the state was also told to submit details of the number of compensation claims it had received and settled, and those that are pending. The stampede had broken out at the Maha Kumbh on January 29 as a large number of pilgrims arrived to take a holy bath on the occasion of Mauni Amavasya, a spiritually significant day in the Hindu calendar. The state government has said that at least 30 persons were killed and 60 others were injured, although several media reports have suggested that the actual toll could be significantly higher. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath had announced financial assistance of Rs 25 lakh for those who died in the stampede. The court was hearing a plea filed by the husband of one of the persons who died. It expressed concern that the woman's body had been handed over to her family without a postmortem being conducted. The judges took note of the serious injuries reported on the woman, including a crushed rib cage, and questioned the lack of official documentation or communication with the family regarding the cause and circumstances of the death, Live Law reported. The bench directed that medical institutions and authorities in Prayagraj be made parties to the petitions and directed them to file affidavits disclosing details of all patients and dead bodies that may have been brought to the facilities and those dispatched by them between the incident and the end of the Mela. The bench was alarmed that the woman's body was handed over to the family in February but compensation was yet to be provided, according to Live Law.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Crorepati' husband must pay ₹1 cr to abused wife: Court
MUMBAI: The sessions court recently increased the compensation given to a woman in a domestic violence case from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore after noticing that her husband and in-laws were multimillionaires. Setting aside the order of a magistrate court, the additional sessions judge said that the compensation amount had to be substantially enhanced so as to compensate her for 20 years of torture and economic abuse. The woman had approached the court claiming she was subjected to years of domestic violence and torture by her husband and in-laws after getting married in December 1997. She said that her husband used to beat her and threaten her with dire consequences if she revealed it to anyone. The petitioner also claimed that she had suffered a miscarriage in the early years of their marriage due to pressure from her in-laws to conceive a son. After giving birth to a girl and two boys, she said her husband and in-laws only cared about her sons and used to mistreat her daughter. However, she continued with the marriage for the sake of her children, she added. The woman, a homemaker, also alleged that she was given a fixed amount to run the household, and her husband would beat her if she failed to account for the expenses. Further, she said that her husband sold a private company, in which she was also a director, without her knowledge and used the money to buy a flat. Despite having a share in the sale proceeds, her husband did not give her any money, she alleged. In November 2016, the woman's husband allegedly stopped giving her any money for household expenses and for the expenses of their daughter, prompting her to file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. An FIR was registered against her husband that same month. However, the magistrate court granted her a compensation of only ₹5 lakh, which she said was too meagre. She then approached the sessions court, arguing for higher compensation. Her petition said that her husband and his family own businesses and several flats in Mumbai, a bungalow in Kharghar, houses in Lonavala and a factory in Navi Mumbai. In response, her husband and in-laws alleged that the woman had the capacity to earn since she was a textile engineering graduate from the University of Mumbai. The sessions court ruled in favour of the woman, saying that 'having the capacity to earn by itself cannot result in the rejection of any claim of maintenance by a complainant who is subjected to domestic violence at the hands of her husband'. The court said it had been proven that the woman was subjected to economic abuse and domestic violence at the hands of the respondents. It added that her husband and his parents had the capacity to spend more than ₹1 crore to purchase land and a flat in Kharghar in 2012, and currently run an elevator company. This was 'a clear reflection of their sound financial status as also the fact of they belonging to the class commonly known as crorepatis,' the court said, adding that the woman and her daughter were also entitled to enjoy the same standard of living. The sessions court, thereby, set aside the magistrate court's order, observing that granting the woman a compensation of ₹5 lakh 'is too meagre an amount'. Observing that the woman's daughter is studying in an international school, the court said she was entitled to a maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month. It also restrained her husband and in-laws from evicting the woman and her daughter from the shared household.
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
Mumbai court raises domestic violence compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore
A sessions court in Mumbai has significantly increased the compensation awarded to a woman who suffered domestic violence for 20 years — raising it from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore, according to a report by legal news portal Live Law. The court noted that the woman's husband and his family are 'crorepatis', meaning extremely wealthy, and that the original compensation amount was too low. In an order passed on May 5, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Ansari stated that the ₹5 lakh compensation set by the Magistrate Court was 'meagre". He observed, 'It is clear that the husband has not been able to prove the fact of he being in dire straits, financially. On the other hand, the material on the record reflects that he and his family are what in common parlance is called 'crorepatis.' The facts of the matter as proved on the record will show that after suffering domestic violence in the nature of beatings, severe assaults, taunts and even financial deprivation in a marriage of almost 20 years, the complainant was forced to approach the court for seeking maintenance, etc. as the last resort. The physical and mental torture as also the sustained emotional distress felt by the complainant while living with the husband can therefore, scarcely be imagined.' The judge further noted that the husband's wealth was a crucial factor in determining appropriate compensation. He said, 'The fact that the complainant has to now also suffer being estranged from her two sons, as the husband appears to have influenced them against their mother, is also something which cannot be ignored. The husband, though has tried his level best to show that he is not in a good financial situation, has not been successful in proving the said contention. On the other hand, he being in a position to purchase properties worth ₹1 crore in 2012, and presently running an elevator company, will surely be rolling in money. Hence, balancing the scale, I am of the view that the compensation as granted to the wife needs to be enhanced to ₹1 crore.' Case background The case involved appeals from both sides: the husband and his parents, and the wife. They were contesting an earlier Metropolitan Magistrate Court order issued on February 18, 2020. The wife had sought an increase in both compensation and her ₹1 lakh monthly maintenance, while the husband challenged both amounts. In a 70-page order, Judge Ansari recounted that the couple married on December 12, 1997, and lived together until November 2016. The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act that same month, accusing her husband of humiliation, abuse, assault, physical, mental and economic cruelty during more than two decades of marriage. Wife's testimony against wealthy husband The wife explained how her husband and in-laws operated several businesses, one of which listed her as a 'namesake' director — she was made to sign documents but had no real role. That company was later sold without her knowledge. She also said the couple owned several properties, including flats across Maharashtra and villas in Lonavla. According to her, the husband often berated her about spending and even threatened violence if she used extra money for household needs — claims the husband denied. She further alleged that her husband and in-laws physically assaulted her and never wanted a girl child. Initially, she was taunted for not conceiving; when she became pregnant with triplets, a miscarriage followed due to 'stress' from her in-laws and husband. Even after giving birth to two sons, she faced continued abuse, and her daughter was not accepted by the family — leading her to support her daughter alone. Court rejects husband's defence The husband disputed these accusations, including the physical abuse, arguing that his wife failed to provide exact dates of assault. Rejecting his arguments, Judge Ansari held, 'No wife can be expected to remember the exact dates and exact trivial reasons for her husband assaulting her over a long period of time. No other witnesses can also have been expected to be examined by the complainant on the said aspect, as the incidents of assault had almost always occurred within the four walls of the house. In such circumstances, the mere fact of the complainant not being able to recall the reason for the trivial fights between her and her husband, as also the specific dates on which she had been physically assaulted cannot at all be said to be grounds sufficient to challenge her testimony regarding the same.' The court found the wife's testimony 'unshaken' regarding most allegations. However, it ruled that she proved domestic violence only by her husband — not her in-laws. The court also determined that the husband committed 'economic abuse.' Responding to the husband's claim that his wife, a textile engineer, was capable of earning an income, Judge Ansari said: 'Even otherwise, having the capacity to earn by itself, cannot result in the rejection of any claim of maintenance by a complainant who is subjected to domestic violence at the hands of her husband. The question of the complainant's minor daughter being in a position to maintain herself, also does not arise. I am therefore of the clear view that the complainant and her minor daughter are entitled to claim maintenance from the husband. The fact that the husband and his parents had the capacity to spend more than ₹1 crore for purchasing land as also a flat in Kharghar in the year 2012 is a clear reflection of their sound financial status as also the fact of they belonging to the class commonly known as 'crorepatis.' It is therefore, not difficult to imagine their standard of living at all times. This being so and the complainant having been subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the husband, she as also her daughter will be entitled to enjoy the same standard of living as that of the respondents.' With these observations, Judge Ansari enhanced the compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore and increased monthly maintenance from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakh — for both the wife and the couple's minor daughter.
