, 2005){kind=link}
The High Court of Calcutta has observed that depriving a woman of financial resources, including the Stridhan, amounted to economic abuse and domestic violence, which came under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV), 2005.
The gifts and presents given to a woman voluntarily by her family during her wedding are known as ‘Stridhan’.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta, while quashing an order passed by a Sessions Judge in Howrah, observed that the deprivation of a petitioner to any economic or financial resource which the aggrieved person was entitled to under any law, was also a form of domestic violence.
The Bench said the fact that the petitioner in the case, a widow, was deprived from her Stridhan articles, which were under the custody of opposite parties, tantamounted to domestic violence.
The Sessions judge in Howrah had set aside the order of a Magistrate Court, which granted compensation and other monetary benefits to the widow against her in-laws.
The petitioner contended before the High Court that her husband expired on October 29, 2010. On the second day after his death, the woman 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.
The petitioner further alleged that while her husband was alive, she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws.
On the other hand, the in-laws 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 noted that there could probably be two explanations for the widow leaving the matrimonial house.
The 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, which means the lady was not treated well at her matrimonial home, observed the Bench.
Stating that the Sessions court committed injustice in not considering the entire case of the widow, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court order. It also took into consideration the fact that the widow did not have any independent income.
The Court noted that the woman was currently residing at her father’s home at the mercy of her father. She has to ask her father to meet her daily expenses. The circumstances incurred and the loss suffered by the petitioner was itself proven from the facts and circumstances of this case, it added.The High Court allowed the plea, after noting that instead of specific legislative intent, the widow has been knocking on the doors of the Courts since the past 10 years without receiving any monetary relief.
Advocates Subir Banerjee, Sandip Bandyopadhyay and Ruxmini Basu Roy appeared for the petitioner, while the in-laws were represented by Advocates Manjit Sing, G Sing, Abhisekh Bagal, Biswajit Mal and R.K. Sing.
(Case title: Nandita Sarkar vs Tilak Sarkar)