Sentencing Trends In Domestic Violence Prosecutions Before Nepalese Courts
1. Case: Raju vs. State (Kathmandu District Court, 2012)
Facts:
Raju, a husband, repeatedly assaulted his wife over financial disputes. The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Act, 2066. The abuse included slapping, pushing, and threats of harm.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Act, 2066, Sections 3 and 13.
Punishment for physical assault and mental harassment within a domestic relationship.
Court Findings:
The court found that Raju committed repeated acts of physical and mental abuse, constituting domestic violence.
Evidence included medical reports, witness testimony, and the victim’s affidavit.
Sentence:
4 months imprisonment.
Fine of NPR 10,000.
Warning that repeated offenses would lead to doubled punishment.
Significance:
This case illustrates the baseline sentencing under the 2009 Domestic Violence Act, where even repeated minor physical assaults result in relatively short imprisonment but can be combined with fines.
2. Case: Sita Karki vs. Ram Karki (Jhapa District Court, 2014)
Facts:
Sita Karki was subjected to severe physical and economic abuse by her husband and in-laws. She was denied food and basic necessities, and the family controlled her income.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Act, 2066, Sections 3 and 8.
Criminal Code provisions for mental and economic harm under Section 176 (criminal abuse).
Court Findings:
Court acknowledged both physical and economic abuse as domestic violence.
Emphasized that restricting basic necessities constitutes serious mental and economic harm.
Sentence:
6 months imprisonment for the husband.
3 months for the mother-in-law.
Fine of NPR 15,000 to be paid jointly.
Significance:
Shows that Nepalese courts are willing to punish extended family members involved in domestic violence, particularly in economic abuse, although sentences remain moderate.
3. Case: Meera Dhungana v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts:
Meera Dhungana petitioned the Supreme Court for protection against marital rape, highlighting that under prior laws, sexual assault by a husband was not treated as a crime.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Challenge under the Constitution of Nepal: Right to Equality and Right to Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment.
Domestic Violence Act (limited at the time in addressing marital rape).
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court held that marital rape cannot be exempted from punishment, as doing so violates equality and human rights.
Directed the government to criminalize marital rape in subsequent legislation.
Sentence / Outcome:
The case itself was a writ petition, so there was no direct sentence, but it led to criminalization of marital rape in the 2017 Criminal Code, which prescribes 5 years imprisonment for spousal sexual assault.
Significance:
Landmark in elevating domestic sexual violence to a criminal offense.
Illustrates the trend of heavier sentencing for serious domestic violence in Nepal.
4. Case: Kamala Thapa vs. Bipin Thapa (Pokhara District Court, 2016)
Facts:
Kamala Thapa reported repeated physical abuse, threats, and confinement by her husband. She also alleged emotional abuse and humiliation in front of neighbors.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Domestic Violence Act, 2066, Sections 3, 8, and 13.
Criminal Code, Section 177 (psychological abuse).
Court Findings:
Court recognized psychological and emotional abuse as actionable under the law.
The husband was found guilty of repeated offenses.
Sentence:
6 months imprisonment.
Fine of NPR 20,000.
Conditional warning that future violations would double the sentence.
Significance:
This case demonstrates Nepalese courts acknowledging psychological harm as domestic violence, beyond just physical assault.
5. Case: Nirmala vs. Ram Prasad (Sunsari District Court, 2017)
Facts:
Nirmala filed a case after suffering repeated physical assaults and being denied access to her property by her husband.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Domestic Violence Act, 2066, Sections 3 and 10 (compensation).
Criminal Code, Sections 176–177 for physical and mental abuse.
Court Findings:
Husband was guilty of repeated domestic violence.
Court also considered the economic deprivation aspect.
Sentence:
8 months imprisonment.
Fine of NPR 25,000.
Compensation of NPR 50,000 to the victim for medical expenses and emotional harm.
Significance:
Illustrates trend toward combining imprisonment, fines, and direct victim compensation in domestic violence cases.
6. Case: Dowry-Related Domestic Violence (Anonymous, 2018)
Facts:
A woman faced abuse because her family could not provide the dowry demanded by her in-laws. Physical assault and verbal threats were repeated.
Legal Provisions Applied:
Domestic Violence Act, 2066, Section 3.
Criminal Code, Section 166 (dowry-related violence).
Court Findings:
Court recognized dowry-related abuse as an aggravating factor, justifying longer sentence.
Sentence:
Husband: 1 year imprisonment.
In-laws: 6 months imprisonment.
Fine: NPR 30,000.
Compensation to victim: NPR 75,000.
Significance:
Shows trend that more serious forms of domestic violence, especially dowry-related, receive longer sentences and higher fines.
Summary of Observed Trends from These Cases
Standard domestic violence (minor physical assault) → 3–6 months imprisonment + fine.
Repeat offences → doubled sentences under the Act.
Economic, psychological, or emotional abuse → increasingly recognized as punishable.
Serious offences (marital rape, dowry-related, repeated severe physical abuse) → multi-year imprisonment, higher fines, and compensation.
Family members beyond the spouse → can be held criminally liable.
Victim compensation is now routinely ordered along with fines.
Judicial recognition of human rights → evolving sentencing trends toward serious punishment for severe domestic violence.
RELATED Blog
comments