'Deprived Of Legitimate Right To Maintenance': MP High Court Grants ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Woman In Domestic Violence Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has substantially enhanced the compensation awarded to a woman and her daughter from ₹10,00 to ₹10 Lakh in a domestic violence case, noting that her husband's family filed a civil suit and obtained a decree, thereby depriving the woman benefit of maintenance which was already settled in her favour.The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed:"The course adopted by the respondents amounts to economic exploitation of the revision petitioners and constitutes a graver form of domestic violence, inasmuch as they were deprived of their legitimate right to maintenance and were compelled to engage in avoidable litigation for a period of more than 14 years". Therefore, the bench directed:"Accordingly, taking into consideration the area (1.25 hectare agricultural land) and value of the lands in question, as well as the delay (more than 14 years) and harassment caused to the revision petitioners, this Court is of the view that the compensation requires enhanced from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only)". The petitioner, Chanda Bai, was married to the respondent, Mayaram, following the Hindu rites and customs. The couple had a daughter. The petitioner claimed that she suffered domestic violence after the birth of their daughter, and subsequently, the respondent also entered into a second marriage with another woman, Sushila. Seeking maintenance, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, wherein the parties entered into a family settlement in 2011. Under the settlement, the petitioner was granted several agricultural lands located in the villages of Banjari and Limboda in lieu of maintenance. Although the settlement was affirmed by the JMFC, a dispute arose regarding implementation. Revenue authorities initially rejected her request for mutation of the land records, but the decision was later overturned by the Sub Division Officer, leading to mutation in her name of the revenue records. Subsequently, the respondents challenged the mutation but were unsuccessful. The petitioner alleged that despite these developments, they were prevented from cultivating land and were subjected to continuous harassment. They further claimed that the family members initiated civil litigation to deprive them of benefits secured through the maintenance settlement. The petitioner and her daughter, therefore, filed an application under Sections 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking monetary relief and compensation. The JMFC, after considering the evidence, awarded ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment but declined to grant other reliefs sought. Appeals were filed by both parties, which were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarana, in May 2019. The petitioners then approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition, contending that the compensation awarded was inadequate and failed to account for the losses suffered due to prolonged exclusion from the agricultural land. The bench noted that the parties had earlier reached an amicable settlement under which the agricultural land was allotted to the petitioners in satisfaction of their maintenance claim. The court also noted that their names were duly entered in the revenue records following settlement. The bench noted that subsequent civil proceedings initiated by some of the respondents effectively deprived the petitioner of the benefits of maintenance that had already been settled in their favour. The court described respondents' actions as a form of economic exploitation and observed that the petitioners were forced into prolonged litigation spanning more than 14 years. According to the bench, such deprivation amounted to a serious form of domestic violence because it interfered with the petitioner's right to maintenance and caused significant hardship. The bench therefore concluded that the compensation of ₹10,000 awarded by the trial court was grossly inadequate considering the nature of deprivation, the value of agricultural land involved, and the lengthy litigation endured by the petitioner. Therefore, the bench enhanced compensation to ₹10 Lakh. Case Title: Smt Chanda Bai v Mayaram, CRR. No. 3517 of 2019For Petitioners: Advocate Mohit MattaClick here to read/download the Order

'Deprived Of Legitimate Right To Maintenance': MP High Court Grants ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Woman In Domestic Violence Case

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

'Deprived Of Legitimate Right To Maintenance': MP High Court Grants ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Woman In Domestic Violence Case

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers