NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

RESPONSE PAPER FOR CRIMINAL LAW-II

Topic

ECONOMIC ABUSE AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: WHEN AND HOW ?

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Suman Dash Bhattamishra Chiranjeeb Prateek Mohanty

(Assistant Professor of Law) (2016/B.A.LLB/028)

Ms. Kuntirani Pradhan

(Research Associate -cum- Teaching Assistant)

1|P a ge
 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
Women's rights groups, such as the noted NGO for women and human rights- Lawyer's
Collective, took notice of the legislative gap concerning non-dowry related domestic violence
and began drafting model legislation for a comprehensive domestic violence bill in 1992. The
purpose of the statute was to provide more effective protection for the constitutional rights of
victims of domestic violence.

With rising numbers of reported abuse without any effective legislation for non-dowry abuses,
the Lawyer's Collective began working on a draft of model domestic violence legislation in
1992. In 1994, the National Commission for Women, an organization in India created by the
government to examine legal remedies and recommend legislative measures for women,
reviewed the law and proposed amendments to safeguard women from domestic violence. Then,
in 1998, the Lawyer's Collective drafted the current version of the bill in consultation with other
women's rights organizations and based it on the U.N. Framework for Model Legislation on
Domestic Violence.

After effective lobbying from women's rights groups to the NDA government, the government
introduced a bill dealing with domestic violence in the Lok Sabha. This version of the bill,
however, ignored many of the issues women's groups identified. After much protest from
women's groups, a parliamentary standing committee attached to the Ministry of Human
Resource Development reviewed the bill, and through countrywide consultations and studies,
made recommendations to the Rajya Sabha in December of 2002. After amendments regarding
the definition of domestic violence and monetary relief, the bill went through both the Lok Sabha
and the Rajya Sabha and was passed by the President in September 2005

UNDERSTANDING ECONOMIC ABUSE

The Act defines domestic violence as an omission, commission, or conduct that "harms or
injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb, or well-being, whether mental or physical, of
the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal
and emotional abuse, and economic abuse." The bill also recognizes multiple relationships which
may constitute a domestic relationship including that of non-married women residing with a

2|P a ge
man. The bill comprehensively sets out procedures for protection orders and civil and criminal
remedies for a violation of such protection orders.

The notion of characterizing economic abuse as a form of domestic violence delineates India's
comprehensive recognition of patterns of violence. Referring to the statute, the hon'ble judges in
the case of Prabir Kumar Ghosh v. Jharna Ghosh, economic abuse includes :

 Deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person
is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or
otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not
limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any,
stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental
related to the shared household and maintenance.
 Disposal of household goods to which the aggrieved person is entitled to, any alienation
of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and tthe
like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by
virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggreved
person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by
the aggrieved person; and
 Prohibition or 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 shared household.

The latter two provisions concern economic resources which the victim is entitled to use by
virtue of the domestic relationship. The first provision, however, concerns economic deprivation
of resources to which the victim is entitled by law, or requires out of necessity. Specifically, the
provision defines economic abuse as "deprivation of economic or financial resources to which,
person aggrieved is entitled under law or custom whether payable under an order of court or
otherwise or which, the person aggrieved requires out of necessity including but not limited to
household necessities for the person aggrieved and her children and also includes payment of
rental related to the shared household. This language thus implies a broad spectrum of rights that

3|P a ge
a woman may have not only to the use of resources, but to possession of such resources as well.
In this respect, this provision includes the broadest definition of economic abuse.

In addition to a deprivation of economic resources to which a victim is "entitled by law,"

economic abuse can be characterized as a deprivation of resources a victim "requires out of
necessity." In interpreting the term "necessity" to determine what types of resources a victim
may require, particular attention must be paid to the purpose of the statute. The purposes of the
statute are the protection of the rights of women who have suffered domestic violence and
prevention of domestic violence. These objectives, however, cannot fully be realized through
legal mechanisms alone. A separate rationale exists to justify a broad interpretation of "economic
abuse" in furtherance of the effective protection of victim's rights and prevention of domestic
violence. In particular, three key public policies promote a broad interpretation of the term and
advance the purpose of the Act. These policies are:- (i) societal attitudes regarding the general
status of women, (ii) enhancing women's confidence when they find themselves in abusive
relationships, and (iii) India's participation in the worldwide movement towards recognizing
economic abuse as domestic violence.

CASE STUDIES ON ECONOMIC ABUSE

1. When we talk of Economic abuse, it doesn't necessarily mean that the abuse happens at the
hands of a man against a woman. Economic abuse can happen the other way round and even
between the same gender, if there exists a factor of dependency of the aggrieved person on the
perpetrator.

The first case shows the same. In the case of Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora1,
the hon'ble Court ruled that "When Section 3 of the Act defines "domestic violence", it is clear
that such violence is gender neutral. It is also clear that physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional
abuse and economic abuse can all be by women against other women. Even sexual abuse may, in
given facts and circumstances, be by one woman on another. Further, Section 17(2) makes it
clear that the aggrieved person cannot be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any
part of it by the "respondent" except in accordance with procedure established by law. If
"respondent" is to be read as only an adult male person, it is clear that women who evict or

1
(2016) 10 SCC 165

4|P a ge
exclude the aggrieved person are not within its coverage, and if that is so, the very Object of the
Act gets defeated."

2. There might arise situations when the Economic abuse and domestic violence was actually
committed much before the Domestic Violence Act came into force and the aggrieved person
wishes to bring an action against the perpetrator after the DV Act came into effect. The Court has
ruled that the provisions of the DV Act shall act retrospectively as well.

In the case of Shalini v. Kishor2, the hon'ble judges allowing the appeal by the aggrieved woman
held that the definitions of the expressions "Domestic violence", "Economic Abuse", "Shared
Household", "Domestic Relationship", "Aggrieved person" defined in Sections 2(a), (f), (s) and
Section 3 of the 2005 DV Act, shall have retrospective effect and can be successfully referred to,
to bring an action against the wrongdoer. None of the sections of the said Act can be said to have
effect only against the situations that arose post 2005 when the Act was passed, and shall have
effect retrospectively.

3. There can be situations when the husband seeks a decree of a judicial separation after which
the wife may claim the stridhan be restored to her. The main issue in the next case was whether
the appellant wife can make a claim of stridhan under Section 12, Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 after a decree of Judicial separation and whether the same is barred
by limitation.

The hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the matter of Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury3,
answered the question in negative. When the matter went in appeal to the apex Court, the
decision of the High Court was reversed and it was held that "Stridhan property is the exclusive
property of the wife on proof that she entrusted the property or dominion over the stridhan
property to her husband or any other member of the family. There is no need to establish any
further special agreement to establish that the property was given to the husband or other
member of the family." In the case, the wife had alleged that the husband had stopped paying
monthly allowances and so she had filed a claim for the restoration of the stridhan. "Regard
being had to the said concept of "continuing offence" and the demands made, the application was

2
(2015) 11 SCC 718
3
(2016) 2 SCC 705

5|P a ge
not barred by limitation and that the application for the claim of stridhan under Section 12 of the
DV Act, 2005 is valid and not barred by limitation.

4. In another case of Saraswathy v. Babu4, the Hon'ble Court ruled that the action of the
respondent husband of throwing the appellant wife out of matrimonial home four months after
marriage and despite repeated orders of various courts and intervention of police, not permitting
her to live in the shared household for the last 14 years squarely comes within the ambit of
'domestic violence' in wide terms as defined in the DV Act of 2005 especially "economic abuse".
The appellant wife having been harassed since 2000 entitled for protection order and residence
order along with maintenance as allowed by the trial court, apart from these reliefs, also entitled
for compensation and damages for injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress,
caused by acts of domestic violence committed by respondent husband"

CONCLUSION

By creating a bill that punishes domestic violence and expands the definition of domestic
violence to include economic abuse, India has taken a step in the right direction. However, what i
personally believe is that the economic abuse provision must be interpreted broadly to include
patterns of social control over women's economic resources in order to effectuate the stated
purposes of the Act, namely the promotion of the rights of survivors of domestic violence.
Specifically, economic abuse should be interpreted to encompass a deprivation of a woman's
legal right to work outside of the home and her right to control her economic resources. If the
Indian judiciary adopts a broad interpretation, India will be promoting its constitutional
guarantees, its international legal obligations, and the statute's overall purpose in light of a
worldwide trend towards recognizing the multifaceted forms of domestic violence.

By enacting the Domestic Violence Act, the Indian government has committed itself to reaching
this goal. However, implementation of the specific provisions presents a great challenge as a
great divide exists between enactment of legislation and effective application of the law. To
combat this challenge, the judiciary must play an active role in ensuring women have economic
control over their lives by interpreting the statute broadly to encompass a woman's fundamental
right to work outside the home and to control her economic resources. Only then will India be

4
(2014) 3 SCC 712

6|P a ge
able to effectively battle the complex issue of deeply entrenched patriarchal ideology and its
defining role in domestic violence.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India had proclaimed, "You can tell the condition of
a nation by looking at the status of its women." Fifty-six years later, India has finally
implemented an act to target a root of the problem of the oppression of women. It is precisely
this type of action that will lead India toward the fulfillment of Nehru's goal of ensuring the
protection of women and raising them to the status they deserve.

7|P a ge