Challenges:
- Misuse of Legal Provisions
- Absence of Financial Hardship
- Lack of Direct Connection to Domestic Violence
- Interim Relief Not Justified
- 95688 08835
- 70170 92986
- tssindiaandassociates@gmail.com
The court observed that the petitioner, Nikita Sharma, alleged domestic violence and dowry harassment after her marriage to Seemant Sharma. She claimed that she was forced to leave her marital home due to continuous mental and physical harassment. Her request for financial assistance under the Domestic Violence Act was based on her need to cover her Ph.D. education expenses. However, the respondent denied all allegations, asserting that she left voluntarily and was financially independent.
It was also observed that the Domestic Violence Act provides financial support for essential needs such as food, shelter, and medical care. However, education expenses, especially for higher studies like a Ph.D., do not fall under the category of necessary reliefs covered by the Act. The court further noted that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove her inability to bear the expenses on her own or to establish that she was entitled to such financial support from the respondent.
As a result, the court ruled that Nikita Sharma’s request for ₹1,80,000 for her Ph.D. education expenses could not be granted under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. It emphasized that while the Act ensures financial relief in cases of genuine need, it does not extend to funding higher education unless a direct dependency is established.
Therefore, the court rejected her application for interim relief, stating that she had not sufficiently demonstrated that her educational expenses were an essential requirement for her survival or well-being under the Domestic Violence Act. The verdict clarified that financial assistance under the Act is limited to basic necessities, and education expenses beyond this scope cannot be covered.