Why Courts Must Ensure Fairness for Both Husband and Wife
A recent order by the Dindoshi Sessions Court in Mumbai has raised serious legal and ethical concerns. In a case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the court granted sweeping reliefs to the wife, including:
- ₹1.5 lakh/month as maintenance for herself,
- ₹1 lakh/month for the child,
- ₹1 crore as compensation for alleged abuse,
- An order stopping the husband from selling or transferring the house, and
- Protection orders against further harm.
While the law provides for such reliefs in genuine cases, the court’s reasoning behind these conclusions is questionable. The case illustrates what happens when only one side of the story is told and believed without critical examination.
The Problem: Husband Didn’t Present His Defence
The husband did not appear as a witness, nor did he bring any evidence or witnesses on his behalf. Due to this, the court only had the wife’s affidavits and statements to rely upon. The entire judgment rests on unverified claims made by one party.
Legally, everyone has the right to stay silent. But the court still must examine both sides fairly, especially in cases where serious allegations like physical violence, mental cruelty, and economic abuse are made.
Serious Allegations, But Where’s the Proof?
The wife made many strong claims, such as:
- Beatings with furniture and belts,
- Denial of food,
- Financial control and humiliation,
- Exclusion from family property.
However, the court did not ask for medical reports, police complaints, or financial documents. No neighbours, family members, or doctors were called as witnesses. Despite this, the court accepted all her claims as true, simply because the husband didn’t deny them in court.
This is risky. In legal terms, allegations must be supported by evidence, not just emotionally written affidavits.
Was ₹1 Crore Compensation Justified?
The DV Act allows compensation for injuries and suffering, but ₹1 crore is an unusually high amount. The court did not ask:
- Was there any evidence of medical harm or long-term trauma?
- Were there any expert reports or psychological evaluations?
- Was financial abuse proven through bank records or business documents?
Courts should not grant such high compensation unless there is clear and detailed evidence of serious harm.
Orders Beyond DV Act’s Scope
The wife also claimed rights over the husband’s businesses and properties. But during cross-examination, she admitted she was not involved in managing them. Despite this, the court still gave directions that affect ownership of property and corporate shareholding—which are not matters to be decided under the Domestic Violence Act.
Property disputes must be handled in a civil court or family court, not through domestic violence proceedings.
Legal Steps the Husband Can Take
The husband still has options:
- File a Revision Petition (Section 397 CrPC) before the High Court to challenge the Sessions Court order.
- File a Writ Petition (Article 227, Constitution) to point out procedural errors and excessive use of power by the court.
- Collect documentary proof – property documents, business records, bank statements.
- If false statements were made under oath, file for perjury under Section 340 CrPC.
The Bigger Picture: Justice Must Work for Both Genders
There’s no doubt that domestic violence laws are essential to protect victims. But they must be used responsibly. Justice means hearing both sides, not assuming guilt because one party stays silent or appears more emotional.
When courts rely solely on one person’s words without questioning or verification, they risk making decisions that may be unfair, unbalanced, and irreversible.
This isn’t just about one family’s case—it’s about ensuring our legal system remains fair and objective for everyone, regardless of gender.