Mumbai Court Rejects Woman's Plea, Says Husband's Financial Support to Mother Not Domestic Violence

Mumbai: A sessions court here has dismissed a plea of a woman challenging a magistrate court order over her complaint against her husband and in-laws, observing that a man giving time and money to his mor cannot be considered as domestic violence.

ditional sessions judge (Dindoshi court) Ashish Ayachit, in order passed on Tuesday, also said allegations against respondents are vague and ambiguous and re is nothing to prove that y subjected applicant (woman) to domestic violence.

woman, who works as an assistant in 'Mantralaya' (state secretariat), h filed a complaint before a magistrate court under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for an order seeking protection, monetary relief and compensation.

She alleged that her husband got married to her by suppressing mental illness of his mor and deceived her.

woman also claimed her mor-in-law opposed her job and used to harass her and that her husband and his mor quarrelled with her.

She said her husband stayed abro for his job from September 1993 to December 2004. Whenever he came to India on leave, he used to visit his mor and send her Rs 10,000 every year. He also spent money for his mor's eye operation, woman said.

She also claimed harassment by or members of her in-laws' family.

Her in-laws, however, denied all allegations.

man claimed that she never accepted him as her husband and used to level false allegations against him.

According to him, he h filed a divorce petition before a family court due to her cruelties.

He also alleged that his wife h withdrawn Rs 21.68 lakh from his NRE (non-resident external) account without any information and purchased a flat with amount.

During pendency of woman's plea, trial court (magistrate) granted her an interim maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month.

After recording of evidence of woman and ors, magistrate court dismissed her plea and vacated interim directions and reliefs granted to her during pendency of proceeding.

woman subsequently filed a criminal appeal before sessions court.

After perusal of evidence, sessions court held that allegations against respondents are "vague and ambiguous" and re is nothing to prove that y subjected woman to domestic violence.

"It is a matter of record that applicant is an 'assistant' working in Mantralaya and getting a salary. It is revealed from entire evidence that her grievance is that, respondent, her husband, is giving time and money to his mor, which cannot be considered as domestic violence," court said.

"Careful reing of entire evidence of applicant and respondent number 1(husband), I am of opinion that applicant has miserably failed to prove that she was subjected to domestic violence," judge said.

court also said held that this proceeding has been initiated only after issuance of a notice by woman's husband for seeking divorce.

woman was not entitled for any relief under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, it said.

court furr said argument that woman's daughter is unmarried and refore maintenance may be awarded to latter cannot be accepted.

" I do not think that applicant is entitled to recover maintenance for major daughter," who has an independent remedy available as per provisions of law, judge said.

impugned judgment of trial court does not require interference by hands of this court, judge ded.

(This is an agency copy. Except heline, Republic Digital has not edited article)