Man Calls Wife ‘Second-Hand’, Ordered To Pay Rs 3 Crore Compensation By Court In Domestic Violence Case

MUMBAI: In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court upheld a trial court's decision, ordering a man who derogatorily referred to his wife as 'second-hand' to pay a hefty compensation of Rs 3 crore along with monthly maintenance of Rs 1.5 lakh under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Background Of The Case

The case, heard by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh on a revision application filed by the husband, stemmed from a tumultuous marriage that began in January 1994 in Mumbai and later included a ceremonial marriage in the USA. Despite owning a shared residence in Matunga upon their return to Mumbai in 2005, marital discord led to the wife relocating to her mother's residence in 2008, while the husband moved to the USA in 2014.

Legal Proceedings

Legal proceedings unfolded in both the USA and Mumbai, with the husband filing for divorce in 2017, which was granted in 2018. Simultaneously, the wife lodged a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in Mumbai.

Testimony And Allegations

The wife recounted a series of distressing incidents, including verbal and physical abuse, particularly highlighting a demeaning instance during their honeymoon in Nepal where the husband labelled her 'second-hand' due to a previous broken engagement. She further revealed instances of verbal degradation, physical violence, and baseless accusations of infidelity, even citing a 1999 incident in Texas where the husband was arrested for assaulting her.

Court's Observations

The court, acknowledging the gravity of domestic violence, emphasized its detrimental impact on the victim's self-worth, irrespective of their social status or education level. It noted that in this case, where both parties were well-educated and held high social standing, the effects of domestic violence would be keenly felt by the wife, affecting her self-worth significantly.

Despite the husband's claims that the domestic violence proceedings were retaliatory to the divorce proceedings initiated by him, the court upheld the trial court's ruling, underscoring the importance of addressing domestic violence comprehensively and providing redressal to victims.