Compensation U/s. 22 Of DV Act: Apex Court To Decide Whether Compensation Should Correlate To Degree Of Violence Suffered By Victim Or Financial Status Of Guilty Party
The Supreme Court recently issued notice and stayed the execution proceedings in a Special Leave Petition filed by a husband in a Domestic Violence case which raises the question of whether compensation awarded under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be related to the degree of the domestic violence suffered by the victim or the financial status and wealth of the guilty party.
The Petitioner-Husband challenged the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court which held that a subsequent divorce decree does not take away the right of the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “The fundamental question raised by Ms. Divan is whether the compensation awarded should co-relate to the degree of domestic violence suffered by the victim or is it to be linked to the financial status of the guilty party… Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the Petitioner-husband.
The Court also held, “The focus of the challenge by the petitioner is the quantum of compensation (Rs.3 crores) quantified under Section 22 of the DV Act. The senior counsel submits that the compensation should be relatable to the damages, injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the act of the spouse and the same cannot relate to the standard of living of the parties. It is specifically argued by Ms. Divan that only for the monetary relief towards maintenance etc. under Section 20 of the DV Act, the standard of living criteria can perhaps be made applicable. It is however seen that the payable compensation is quantified at Rs.3 crores based on the petitioner’s annual income, who is a U.S. Citizen, for the year 2008-2009.”
The Petitioner-husband and Respondent No.1-Wife, both citizens of the USA, got married on 3rd January 1994 in Mumbai and also had a marriage ceremony in the USA on 25th November 1994. They resided in India and the USA before the respondent moved out of the matrimonial house in May 2008. In 2017, the Petitioner filed for divorce in the USA, which was granted on 3rd January 2018.
On 7th July 2017, Respondent No. 1-wife had filed an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the DV Act in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. She alleged instances of physical and emotional abuse, accusing the husband of assaulting her, casting aspersions on her character, and restricting her interactions with her family.
The magistrate had granted various reliefs sought by the Wife, including interim maintenance, possession of a flat, restraining orders against the transfer of the flat, alternate accommodation, and compensation. The Sessions Court had upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision, holding that the appeal filed by the husband lacked merit.
In the Impugned Judgment herein the High Court upheld the findings of domestic violence and rejected the contentions that there were no police complaints and no medical record. It was highlighted that it is not necessary that acts of domestic violence are substantiated by documentary evidence like medical records or police reports, while observing that, "In cases of domestic violence, it is not necessary that the acts complained of are required to be substantiated by documentary evidence in form of medical records or police reports. It is well known that as the marriage is subsisting, more often than not there is no police complaint filed and the physical abuse may not be to such an extent so as to require hospitalization, in which case the medical record would substantiate the abuse. It needs to be noted that although the provisions of Cr. P.C. govern the proceedings, the remedies are civil remedies and the usual standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to criminal offence is not required to be applied... It is well known that abuse in a matrimonial relationship usually occurs within four walls of the house and is confined to the two parties. It is very rarely that such incidents occur in presence of eye witnesses and the evidence has to be accordingly assessed."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued notice subject to a deposit of 50% of the quantified compensation i.e. Rupees Three Crores, within two weeks.
Cause Title: Kaushal Arvind Thakker v. Jyoti Kaushal Thakker and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, Advocates Vikram Deshmukh, Shubham Kulshreshtha, Satya Rath and Manju Jetley.
