Depriving wife of financial resources, Stridhan is domestic violence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that depriving a woman of her Stridhan or any other financial or economic resources she is entitled to, would amount to domestic violence under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) [Nandita Sarkar vs Tilak Sarkar]..Stridhan is gifts/ presents given to a woman voluntarily by her family during her wedding.Single-judge Justice Subhendu Samanta said the PWDV Act covers within its scope, 'economic abuse.'"The deprivation of petitioner to any economic or financial resources which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law is also Domestic Violence. In this case, it is the fact that the petitioner was deprived from her Stridhan articles since long, which were under the custody of the opposite parties. This fact tantamount Domestic Violence," Justice Samanta observed in the order.The Court, therefore, quashed an order passed by a Sessions judge in Howrah who had set aside the order of a Magistrate Court granting compensation and other monetary benefits to a widow against her in-laws..The Court was hearing a plea by a widow seeking compensation and monetary reliefs from her in-laws. Her husband had expired on October 29, 2010. On the second day after his death, she was asked to leave the matrimonial house by her in-laws. She alleged that the in-laws did not give her the Stridhan and kept other articles with them.She alleged that while her husband was alive, her in-laws subjected her to cruelty.The in-laws, on the other hand, contended that the widow herself left the house voluntarily. Subsequently, the widow sought compensation and other monetary reliefs under the PWDV Act by filing proceedings before a Magistrate, who allowed her plea on July 31, 2015. However, the order was quashed by the Sessions court on April 7, 2018..The High Court said that there can be probably two explanations for the widow leaving the matrimonial house. "First, widow may have felt very alone in absence of her husband and took cozy shelter at her father’s home; Second, there existed no good terms with her in-laws; that is the lady was not well at her matrimonial home," the bench noted.The Court further said that the Sessions court committed injustice in not considering the entire case of the widow before him. Further, the Court noted that the widow did not have any independent income."She is now residing at her father’s home at the mercy of her father. The day-to-day expenses of her livelihood is not a deniable factor. She is only to lay her hand to her father for to meet out the daily expenses. Thus the circumstances incurred and loss suffered by the petitioner is itself proved from the facts and circumstances of this case," the single-judge noted.The argument advanced by in-laws, the Court said, has no merit on that score. "Ultimately, it is the irony of fate, that instead of specific legislative intent, the widow lady is roaming doors of Courts since long 10 years without receiving any monetary relief," the Court stated while allowing the plea..Advocates Subir Banerjee, Sandip Bandyopadhyay and Ruxmini Basu Roy appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates Manjit Sing, G Sing, Abhisekh Bagal, Biswajit Mal and RK Sing represented the In-Laws..[Read Judgment]