Courts must ‘read between the lines’ in domestic violence cases: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that courts are “required to read between the lines” in domestic violence cases, while assessing complaints, as acts of abuse “more often than not, are carried out within four walls,” making it extremely difficult for victims to prove the conduct they were subjected to.

“It is, therefore, that in such cases, the standard of proof required is not as stringent. Trite to say that the courts are required to read between the lines, and after the preponderance of all possibilities, determine whether or not the allegations so made contain any substance or not,” Justice Kirti Singh observed, while upholding maintenance and accommodation relief to a wife and two daughters by a Gurugram court.

Clarifying the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the court asserted the law “does not give a restrictive definition of domestic violence”, but “envisages an all-inclusive concept of abuse — be it physical, sexual, emotional, verbal and even economic abuse”. Section 3(a) expressly provides that “any harm, injury or endangerment of even the mental well-being of an aggrieved person would amount to domestic violence.”

On economic abuse, the court asserted: “The term includes deprivation of all or any economic/financial resources which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom, whether payable under an order of the Court or otherwise, or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity.”

Justice Kirti Singh added that monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Act “can be ordered to be paid to an aggrieved person and any child, to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by that person, and includes the sum for maintenance of the aggrieved person as well as her children, which is to be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed to”.

Referring to the facts of the case at hand, the court noted that the matrimonial relationship between the parties was admitted, satisfying the definition of a “domestic relationship”. The trial and appellate courts had already found the wife to be an “aggrieved person” subjected to emotional and economic abuse. This finding, the High Court recorded, was based on the fact that the husband, though living in the same household, “made no efforts to reconcile with the wife… Rather, it was he who deserted them,” and desertion was understood not merely in the physical sense, but also as “a wider concept, including the emotional aspect within the ambit”.

Justice Kirti Singh asserted that the husband despite ample opportunity did not engage in dialogue with his wife or monitor the children’s growth. The wife admitted that he had met certain expenses, including education, electricity and household staff salaries. But “the same does not absolve him of the emotional abuse that he subjected his wife and children to.”

“It is an unfortunate truth that the brunt of familial discord weighs the heaviest on the children. Therefore, while dealing with matrimonial matters involving children, courts must not take a hyper-technical view… but adjudicate… in a way that best suits the interest of all parties and leads to substantive justice, since law should be for the people and not the other way around,” the court remarked.

Upholding the lower courts’ decision, the High Court found “no illegality or infirmity” in awarding maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month each to daughters and Rs 40,000 per month to wife and children towards alternate accommodation, given the difficulty of finding suitable housing in Gurugram for less than Rs 70,000–80,000 per month. It, however, modified the order to limit maintenance for the daughters under the Act until they attained the age of majority, leaving it open for them to seek further relief under other provisions, including Section 125 of the CrPC and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.