Dark Mode
  • Friday, 26 April 2024
City Civil Court, Bengaluru : Second Marriage By Husband An Emotional Abuse Under Domestic Violence Act

City Civil Court, Bengaluru : Second Marriage By Husband An Emotional Abuse Under Domestic Violence Act

City Civil Court, Bengaluru : Second Marriage By Husband An Emotional Abuse Under Domestic Violence Act

Very recent, a Court of Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Court0,. Bengaluru, while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, concluding that emotional abuse caused to wife due to Husband marrying another lady is under the ambit of Domestic Violence. 

 

 

 

 

 

The appellant filed the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in order to challenge the order passed by the M.M.T.C.-2, Bengaluru, Court.

 

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming she was the aggrieved party and seeking protection, residence, and monetary relief under Sections 18 to 20 of the PWDV Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Court stated that it was clearly demonstrated that respondent married another lady, resulting in emotional abuse to the petitioner. The facts established that the petitioner was a victim of domestic violence as defined by Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

 

Concerning the grant of other reliefs, the trial court determined that, according to respondent’s cross-examination version, he received Rs 94,000 gross salary in June 2018. Petitioner was making a good living from his pottery business. Taking into account the maintenance order and respondent’s income, the Court ordered respondent to pay Rs 20,000 in addition to Rs 3,00,000 for mental torture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Court further noticed that the petitioner was living in a shared household, even though she was living separately in a house owned by respondent, and respondent has no evidence that the petitioner was working as a teacher, as he claims. She was 50 years old, and the chances of finding work at that age were slim.

 

 

 

The trial court terminated that the petitioner had demonstrated that respondent had been subjected to domestic violence and thus could not be interfered with and therefore dismissed the Appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment / Reply From

Vote / Poll

Would you be interested in providing content for this newsletter?

View Results
Yes
77%
No
0%
Maybe
23%

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!