Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

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.,

Similar News