Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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