Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Deprivation of Economic Resources and Property Rights Constitutes Economic Abuse Under DV Act: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court, with Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh presiding, held that depriving a spouse of economic resources and property rights amounts to economic abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court's decision came in the case of Ashok Sunderjibhai Jadhav vs Madhu Ashok Jadhav and Anr., pronounced on 27th February 2024.

The Court delved into the interpretation of economic abuse under the DV Act. The judgement highlighted that deprivation of economic resources and properties, which the aggrieved party is entitled to, amounts to economic abuse. This includes the deprivation of the respondent's right to use properties jointly owned and lack of provision for her maintenance.

Facts and Issues: The respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, claiming relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Act. The petitioner denied these allegations. The Trial Court partly allowed the application, leading to the petitioner's challenge in the Appellate Court, which was dismissed, and subsequently, the present writ petition was filed.

Economic Abuse: The Court observed that the petitioner deprived the respondent of her right to use properties jointly owned and failed to provide maintenance, thereby constituting economic abuse.

Quantum of Maintenance: The Court upheld the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court. It noted that the petitioner's income tax returns did not reflect his true income, considering his undisclosed income and properties.

Compensation: The compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- was justified in view of the respondent's mental agony and deprivation of property use.

Refusal of Cohabitation: The Court found the respondent's refusal to resume cohabitation reasonable, due to her justified fears of being deprived of her property rights.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of economic abuse and upholding the maintenance and compensation awarded to the respondent.

Date of Decision: 27th February 2024.

Ashok Sunderjibhai Jadhav vs Madhu Ashok Jadhav and Anr.,

Latest Legal News