Observing that the husband and his family are ‘crorepatis’, a Mumbai sessions court recently increased the compensation for a woman — subjected to 20 years of abuse, humiliation, and domestic violence — from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Ansari remarked that the ₹5 lakh compensation earlier awarded by the Magistrate Court was “meagre.”
“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,” Judge Ansari said in the order passed on May 5.
Observing that the husband and his family are ‘crorepatis’, a Mumbai sessions court recently increased the compensation for a woman — subjected to 20 years of abuse, humiliation, and domestic violence — from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Ansari remarked that the ₹5 lakh compensation earlier awarded by the Magistrate Court was “meagre.”
“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 Rs.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 Rs.1 crore,” the judge ordered.
The court was hearing cross-appeals filed by both the husband, his parents, and the wife, challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated February 18, 2020. While the wife sought an increase in both the compensation and the monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh awarded earlier, the husband contested the very grant of compensation and maintenance.
In a detailed 70-page judgment, the judge observed that the couple married on December 12, 1997, and lived together until November 2016 — the month when the wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, alleging over two decades of humiliation, abuse, physical assaults, and economic, mental, and emotional cruelty at the hands of her husband.
The wife highlighted the significant wealth of her husband and his parents, noting their involvement in multiple businesses. In one such company, she claimed she was made a ‘namesake’ director, merely signing documents without any actual role or involvement. She further alleged that the company was later sold without her knowledge. The couple had acquired several properties, including flats across Mumbai and Maharashtra, as well as bungalows and villas in Lonavla. Despite this affluence, she stated that her husband regularly berated her over household expenses and even threatened her with assault for spending beyond a limit. The husband, however, denied these allegations.
The wife further alleged that her husband and in-laws frequently assaulted her and were strongly opposed to having a girl child. She stated that she was initially mocked for not conceiving and, later, during a pregnancy with triplets, suffered a miscarriage due to the emotional stress inflicted by her husband and his family. Even after the birth of their two sons, she claimed the abuse continued, and the arrival of their daughter was never accepted by the husband or his parents. As a result, she said she has had to bear all expenses related to her daughter on her own. These allegations were denied by the husband.
In response to the claims of physical assault, the husband argued that the wife failed to provide specific dates on which the alleged incidents occurred.
Rejecting the husband’s 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 to be consistent and credible with respect to several of her allegations. However, it concluded that she was able to establish domestic violence only by the husband, not by her in-laws. The court also held that the husband had subjected her to ‘economic abuse’.
s regards the contention of the husband that the wife is a Textile Engineer and has a capacity to earn, Judge Ansari observed, “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 Rs. 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.”
Based on these findings, the judge increased the compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore and raised the monthly maintenance from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakh for the wife and their minor daughter.
