In a landmark decision, a Mumbai Sessions Court has significantly enhanced the compensation awarded to a woman in a domestic violence case, directing her wealthy husband to pay a lump sum of ₹1 crore for two decades of abuse. The compensation was previously fixed at ₹5 lakh by a metropolitan magistrate but was found to be “too meagre” by the appellate court.
Special Judge S J Ansari of the Dindoshi Sessions Court delivered the judgment on May 5, while hearing appeals filed by both the husband and the wife challenging the 2020 order.
“The material on the record reflects that he and his family are what in common parlance is called ‘crorepatis’… the respondent No.1 (husband) being extremely rich, the grant of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is too meagre an amount,” the court observed.
The woman, who married the man in 1997, alleged that she endured relentless physical, emotional, and economic abuse over the course of their marriage. She narrated multiple instances of assault, including a particularly violent incident in November 2016 that left her hospitalised. Her husband was arrested but denied all charges, claiming she had injured herself.
Seeking justice, the woman filed for increased compensation and maintenance. Her husband, however, contested the claims, citing financial stress and asserting he was the victim of domestic discord. He also claimed losses in his business and denied owning significant assets.
The court, however, found these assertions baseless, noting that the husband had failed to furnish any financial documents. In contrast, records showed that he and his father had jointly purchased property worth over ₹1 crore in 2012 and continued operating businesses.
Citing a Bombay High Court precedent, Judge Ansari emphasized a woman’s right to the same standard of living as her husband and to damages for both physical harm and emotional trauma. “The physical and mental torture as also the sustained emotional distress felt by the complainant while living with the respondent No.1 can therefore, scarcely be imagined,” the court stated. “The complainant was forced to approach the court for seeking maintenance, etc. as the last resort.”
Along with the ₹1 crore compensation, the court increased the woman’s monthly maintenance from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakh and upheld the ₹1 lakh monthly support for their daughter until she turns 18. It also upheld the wife’s right to reside in their Mumbai flat—deemed a “shared household”—and barred the husband and his parents from evicting her or transferring ownership.
The husband’s appeal was dismissed entirely, and he was ordered to bear all legal costs. The court also reaffirmed protection orders in favour of the wife to prevent any further harassment.
