Spread the love

According to the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Calcutta High Court has decided that depriving a woman of her Stridhan or any other financial or economic resources to which she is entitled is considered domestic violence (PWDV Act).[Nandita Sarkar vs Tilak Sarkar]

The High Court said that the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also covers within its ambit, ‘economic abuse.

Stridhan are gifts or presents that a woman’s family gives her voluntarily during her wedding.

Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that:

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”

Single-judge Justice Subhendu Samanta said the PWDV Act covers within its scope, ‘economic abuse.’

A widow had filed a petition with the court asking for financial and other assistance from her in-laws. She lost her husband on October 29, 2010. On the second day after his passing, her in-laws requested that she vacate the marital residence. She insisted that her in-laws kept other stuff for themselves and did not give her the Stridhan.

While her spouse was still alive, her in-laws allegedly abused her terribly.

On the other hand, the in-laws asserted that the widow voluntarily departed the home.

The widow then petitioned a Magistrate for compensation and other financial reliefs under the PWDV Act, and on July 31, 2015, the Magistrate granted her request. But on April 7, 2018, the Sessions Court struck down the decree.

The widow’s departure from the marital residence is likely due to two factors, according to the High Court.

The Sessions Court erred, according to the Court, in not hearing the entirety of the widow’s case before him.

The Court further pointed out that the widow had no other sources of income.

The petitioner was represented by Subir Banerjee, Sandip Bandyopadhyay, and Ruxmini Basu Roy.

Lawyers Manjit Sing, G Sing, Abhisekh Bagal, Biswajit Mal, and RK Sing defended the in-laws.

Written by Rishav raj BBA LL. B 4th semester (RNB global university)


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *