[Domestic Violence] The aggrieved often do not rush to police or keep medical records of abuse: Bombay High Court upholds payment of compensation

Aggrieved persons do not always rush to police when inflicted with abuse nor do they necessarily keep medical records if they are injured, observed the Bombay High Court recently while upholding an order directing the husband to pay compensation in a domestic violence case..In this case, the wife had filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) seeking monthly maintenance, compensation and return of Stridhan and household articles after she was allegedly driven out of her marital house. .The Magistrate rejected the grant of compensation and return of Stridhan but ordered the payment of ₹ 5,000 towards monthly maintenance. This order was challenged in the Sessions Court by both parties. .Dismissing the husband's appeal, the Sessions Court increased the monthly maintenance to ₹ 6,000 and directed the husband to also pay compensation to the tune of ₹ 50,000..Aggrieved by levy of compensation, the husband appealed before the High Court ,stating that the wife had not submitted any material (medical or police complaint) to show any physical abuse that she allegedly endured. .Refusing to intervene with Sessions Court's order, Justice Manish Pitale observed that, "in cases of domestic violence, it is often found that the aggrieved person, in this case the wife, does not immediately rush to the police when inflicted with physical, mental and physiological and economic abuse.".He added that even if persons suffer injuries, they would not necessarily keep medical records of the same. "It cannot be said that only because no medical documents were produced, the wife in the present case, was not entitled for compensation", the Court said..The wife had also moved the High Court challenging the amount of maintenance and compensation levied by the Sessions Court and seeking further enhancement of both amounts. .In a cross petition, the husband stated that the levy of compensation and the enhancement of monthly maintenance by the Sessions Court was without considering the financial status of the husband..Dismissing the prayers of the wife as well, Justice Pitale held that, considering the pay slip of the husband placed on record, a case for further enhancement is not made out. ."Considering that the net salary was found to be Rs.14,009/- per month, this Court is of the opinion that the direction to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife cannot be said to be unreasonable" the order reads. .The husband further raised a question of law on the aspect of limitation to state that the Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint filed by his wife at the first instance as it was time-barred. .The High Court, however, relied on the concept of "continuing cause of action and continuing offence" in declining to accept this argument..The Court noted that the wife claimed she was being harassed and abused (including economic abuse) by the husband and relatives. She also claimed that she was driven out of the house in February 2011 while her complaint was filed in October 2012. ."The purpose of enactment of D.V. Act is to provide remedies to such aggrieved persons, apart from proceedings that an aggrieved person may initiate under existing civil and criminal laws" the Court added, while rejecting the husband's arguments on limitation. .[Read judgment]