Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

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