The Calcutta High Court held that a woman who was forced out of her matrimonial home can initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act from a shelter home and that allegations of economic abuse can give rise to a continuing cause of action. The bench, comprising Justice Kaushik Chanda and Justice Kausik Chanda, addressed an appeal in which the petitioner contended that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial residence and thereafter took shelter in a women’s home. The petitioner had filed an application under the Act seeking reliefs including maintenance and protection against domestic violence, but the trial court declined to entertain her petition on the ground that she had filed it from a shelter home rather than from the matrimonial home. The trial court reasoned that the statutory remedies under the Act could not be invoked unless the aggrieved person was residing in the shared household or had left it within a specified time period.
The High Court examined the scope of the Act and the meaning of terms such as “shared household” and “aggrieved person”. The bench observed that the object of the legislation is to protect women from domestic violence and provide them with accessible remedies irrespective of their current residence. It noted that a woman who has been driven out of her matrimonial home by acts of domestic violence cannot be turned away from seeking protection merely because she is no longer resident in that home. The High Court emphasized that the Act must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to its remedial and protective purpose rather than in a restrictive technical manner that defeats the legislative intent.
In its reasoning, the court held that when a woman is forced to leave her matrimonial home due to acts of domestic violence, she should not be deprived of the statutory remedy provided under the Act merely because she has taken shelter in a shelter home. The bench observed that filing a petition from a shelter home does not deprive the court of jurisdiction or strip the aggrieved person of her right to seek protection and relief. Instead, the cause of action for domestic violence continues to subsist and the woman is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act wherever she is residing, so long as the acts complained of have taken place within the statutory period.
The court also considered the issue of economic abuse raised by the petitioner. It held that economic abuse, which may include deprivation of financial resources or prevention of access to money, amounts to domestic violence under the Act and creates a continuing cause of action. The bench observed that deprivation of financial support can result in ongoing hardship for the aggrieved person and therefore falls within the ambit of actionable harm under the statute. The High Court noted that economic abuse can have far-reaching consequences on the aggrieved person’s ability to sustain herself, and that the Act duly recognizes such forms of abuse as falling within its protective scope.
The High Court’s ruling clarified that domestic violence proceedings are not barred merely because the aggrieved person resides outside the matrimonial home at the time of filing, especially where such departure was a consequence of the alleged domestic violence itself. The court emphasized that statutory remedies must be made available to those in vulnerable circumstances and that technical interpretations that restrict access to such remedies must be avoided.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application on the ground of her residence in a shelter home. It directed that the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act be restored and that the aggrieved person be afforded the opportunity to press her claims, including those of economic abuse and associated reliefs. The judgment underscores the principle that access to justice under the Domestic Violence Act is not contingent upon the physical presence of the aggrieved person in the matrimonial home but is available wherever acts of domestic violence have taken place and continue to have effect. The High Court’s interpretation reinforces the objective of the legislation to provide effective protection and relief to women subjected to domestic violence irrespective of their present place of residence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.