Surat. A court in Surat clarified in a significant domestic violence case that economic exploitation is a continuous atrocity, and therefore, no time limit applies for filing such cases.
The court rejected a petition filed by the husband, which sought to dismiss the wife's domestic violence application filed five years later on the grounds of time limitation. According to the case, Hina Patel, a resident of Jahangirpura, married Jay Patel from the Palanpur area in 2016. After marriage, she began living in a joint family, where she alleged mental and physical harassment by her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law.
The wife claimed that during and after the marriage, she was asked for money, and her husband had control over her bank accounts and transactions. Allegations also included that the husband had a relationship with another woman, which led to disputes between the couple. Additionally, frequent fights occurred due to the husband's addiction to alcohol and other substances, which included physical assault and abuse against the wife.
In 2019, during an incident, she was allegedly thrown out of the house without any provision for her maintenance. The victim filed an application against her husband and in-laws in the Surat Court under the Domestic Violence Act through her lawyer. The husband argued in court that the application was made five years later and should be dismissed on the grounds of time limitation.
Meanwhile, the wife's advocate, Preeti Jignesh Joshi, argued that economic exploitation under the Domestic Violence Act—such as not providing maintenance to the wife—is a continuous offense. Therefore, as long as the victim suffers the consequences, she can apply for justice. After hearing arguments from all parties, F.K.
Chand, the 9th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of Surat, stated in his order that economic exploitation and deprivation of maintenance is a continuous wrongful act. As long as the victim has to bear its effects, the offense continues. The argument of time limitation is not valid in such cases.
The court found that the victim is currently living in her parental home and that no provision for her maintenance has been made by the husband. Considering this as clear economic violence, the court rejected the husband's petition and directed the continuation of the case hearing. (Note: The names of the parties in the case have been changed.)
Publish with Us: Wish to feature your personal or organizational milestones, success stories, or press releases in Loktej English? Contact us, and we will guide you through our publication process.
Feedback & Corrections: We strive for accuracy. If you spot an error, have feedback, or object to the content of this article/press release, please notify us at loktejonline [at] gmail [dot] com. We will review the matter and rectify it at the earliest.
