In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court affirmed a decision from the trial court, mandating a man to provide ₹3 crores as compensation to his estranged wife in a case governed by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, presiding as the sole judge, concurred with the trial court's determination that the husband had perpetrated acts of violence against his wife spanning from 1994 to 2017, causing her emotional, physical, and mental anguish.

The Court further emphasized that although there isn't a fixed formula for determining compensation in such instances, the awarded amount could be influenced by the severity of the violence's impact on the victim.

“Admittedly both the parties are well educated and highly placed in their workplace and in social life. That being the social standing, the acts of domestic violence would be greater felt by the respondent no 1 (wife) as it would affect her self-worth. This is not to be interpreted to mean that the aggrieved person from other walks of life will not be impacted by the domestic violence suffered by them," the Court added.

Additionally, the High Court noted that the trial court had carefully assessed all relevant facts, including the parties' respective statuses and incomes, before awarding compensation to the woman.

The couple in question had married in 1994 and subsequently relocated to the United States of America (USA).

In 2005, the couple returned to Mumbai after residing in the United States of America (USA). However, in 2014, the husband returned to the USA without his wife. Subsequently, in 2017, the husband initiated divorce proceedings against his wife in the US, following a domestic violence complaint filed by the wife in Mumbai. In 2018, a US court granted the husband's divorce petition. In 2023, an Indian magistrate directed the man to pay ₹3 crores as compensation to his estranged wife, in addition to ₹1.5 lakhs as monthly maintenance.

Furthermore, the man was ordered to either provide suitable accommodation for the aggrieved woman or, alternatively, pay ₹75,000 as monthly rent.

The husband, dissatisfied with the magistrate's order, appealed the decision. Despite the rejection of his plea by a sessions court, the man sought relief from the Bombay High Court. Justice Deshmukh, presiding over the High Court, concluded that the trial court's order was rooted in the acknowledgment of ongoing domestic violence spanning from 1994 to 2017.