SARASWATHY versus BABU

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 914 · Decided: 25-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 914 
SARASWATHY 
v. 
BABU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1999 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 
C - ss. 2(g) 3, 18, 19, 20 and 22 - Petition under - Order of court 
directing the husband to allow the wife to reside in the shared 
household - The order defied by the husband - Whether the 
act of the husband amounts to 'domestic violence' as defined 
under the Act - Held: The act of the husband comes squarely 
o within the ambit of s.3- In view of continued domestic violence 
by the husband against the wife, /-ligh Court made an 
apparent error in holding that the conduct of the parties prior 
to coming into force of the Act cannot be taken into 
consideration - The wife having been iwrassed, is entitled to 
E 
protection orders and residence orders alongwith 
maintenance -
In addition, she is also entitled for 
compensation and damages for injuries, including mental 
torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic 
violence by the husband -
Husband directed to pay 
F compensation and damages to the extent of Rs.5 /akhs. 
Words and Phrases - 'Domestic violence' - Meaning of, 
in the context of Protection of Women from Domestic 
Violence Act, 2005. 
G 
The appellant-wife of the respondent, filed petition 
seeking relief u/ss.18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of 
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court 
directed the respondent to give her maintenance and also 
gave residence order in her matrimonial house directing 
H 
914 
SARASWATHY v. BABU 
915 
the police to give her protection in implementing the A 
residence order. The respondent-husband, despite the 
order of the court, did not allow the appellant to reside 
in the shared household. 1.n the contempt petition filed by 
the appellant, the respondent gave wrong address and 
mislead the High Court. 
B 
The High Court, by impugned order held that though 
the offending acts of the husband could be construed as 
offences under other enactments, it could not be 
construed as acts of domestic violence under the 2005 
Act, until the Act came into force. Hence the present C 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 2 (g) of Protection of Women from 0 
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 states that "domestic 
violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in 
Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 is the definition of 
domestic violence. Clause (iv) of Section 3 relates to 
"economic abuse" which includes prohibition or E 
restriction to continued access to resources or facilities 
which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by 
virtue of the domestic relationship including access to 
the shared household as evident from clause (c) of 
Section 3(iv). [Para 12] [927-C-D] 
2. In the present case, in view of the fact that even 
after the order passed by the Subordinate Judge the 
respondent-husband did not allow the appellant-wife to 
reside in the shared household matrimonial house, there 
F 
is a continuance of domestic violence committed by the G 
respondent-husband against the appellant-wife. In view 
of such continued domestic violence, it is not necessary 
for the courts below to decide whether the domestic 
violence is committed prior to the coming into force of the 
Act and whether such act falls within the definition of the H 
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 12 S.C.R. 
A term 'Domestic Violence' as defined under Section 3 of 
the Act [Para 13] [927-E-F] 
3. The act of the respondent-husband squarely 
comes within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act which 
8 
defines "domestic violence" in wide term. The High Court 
made an apparent error in holding that the conduct of the 
parties prior to the coming into force of the Act cannot 
be taken into consideration while passing an order. This 
is a case where the respondent-husband has not 
complied with the order and direction passed by the trial 
C court and the appellate court. He also misleads the court 
by giving wrong statement before the High Court in the 
contempt petition filed by the appellant-wife. The 
appellant-wife having been harassed since 2000 is 
entitled for protection orders and residence orders under 
D Section 18 and 19 of the Act along with the maintenance 
as allowed by the trial court under Section 20 (d) of the 
Act. Apart from these reliefs, she is also entitled for 
compensation and damages for the injuries, including 
mental torture and e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.