Srinagar: In a significant ruling on women's rights and financial security after marital breakdown, a Srinagar court has observed that a woman cannot be compelled or expected to remarry merely to secure her livelihood following the collapse of a matrimonial relationship.
The judgment was delivered by Special Mobile Magistrate (PT&E), Srinagar, Massarat Jabeen, while deciding a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner, Sheema Iqbal, had approached the court seeking protection, residence, monetary relief, custody, and compensation for alleged physical, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse by her husband and mother-in-law.
The court emphasized that the Domestic Violence Act is a welfare-oriented legislation intended to protect a woman's dignity, residence rights, and financial security. It observed that economic vulnerability should not force women into dependence or compel them to seek financial stability through another marriage.
Rejecting the notion that remarriage is a legal solution to financial hardship after matrimonial breakdown, the court stated that the decision whether or not to remarry lies entirely within a woman's personal autonomy and dignity.
After examining the evidence, the court found that the petitioner had established domestic violence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. While some allegations lacked independent corroboration, the court held that sufficient evidence existed regarding emotional distress, economic abuse, marital discord, and separation to warrant relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
The court further observed that statutory protection under the Domestic Violence Act extends even to women who were previously in a domestic relationship. Consequently, the husband's contention that subsequent divorce proceedings extinguished the petitioner's claims was rejected.
Considering the petitioner's financial circumstances, lack of independent income, and responsibility toward her minor daughter, the court held that adequate monetary and residential protection was necessary to prevent continuing vulnerability.
Invoking Sections 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, the court awarded ₹20 lakh as compensation for mental torture and emotional distress. The husband was also directed to pay ₹15,000 per month to the petitioner, ₹20,000 per month for the minor child residing with her, and ₹10,000 per month towards rent for accommodation.
The court clarified that while women are entitled to statutory protection and financial support under the law, such relief must be determined based on evidence, the parties' circumstances, and the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The judgment reinforces the principle that women's economic security should be protected through legal rights rather than assumptions about remarriage.