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 mother cannot be considered as domestic violence.
Additional sessions judge (Dindoshi court) Ashish Ayachit, in the order passed on Tuesday, also said the allegations against the respondents are vague and ambiguous and there is nothing to prove that they subjected the applicant (woman) to domestic violence.
The woman, who works as an assistant in the ‘Mantralaya’ (state secretariat), had filed a complaint before a magistrate court under the 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 the mental illness of his mother and deceived her.
The woman also claimed her mother-in-law opposed her job and used to harass her and that her husband and his mother quarrelled with her.
She said her husband stayed abroad for his job from September 1993 to December 2004. Whenever he came to India on leave, he used to visit his mother and send her Rs 10,000 every year. He also spent money for his mother’s eye operation, the woman said.
She also claimed harassment by the other members of her in-laws’ family.
Her in-laws, however, denied all the allegations.
The man claimed that she never accepted him as her husband and used to level false allegations against him.
According to him, he had filed a divorce petition before a family court due to her cruelties.
He also alleged that his wife had withdrawn Rs 21.68 lakh from his NRE (non-resident external) account without any information and purchased a flat with the amount.
During the pendency of the woman’s plea, the trial court (magistrate) granted her an interim maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month.
After recording of evidence of the woman and others, the magistrate court dismissed her plea and vacated the interim directions and reliefs granted to her during the pendency of the proceeding.
The woman subsequently filed a criminal appeal before the sessions court.
After perusal of the evidence, the sessions court held that the allegations against the respondents are “vague and ambiguous” and there is nothing to prove that they subjected the woman to domestic violence.
“It is a matter of record that the applicant is an ‘assistant’ working in Mantralaya and getting a salary. It is revealed from the entire evidence that her grievance is that, the respondent, her husband, is giving time and money to his mother, which cannot be considered as domestic violence,” the court said.
“Careful reading of the entire evidence of the applicant and respondent number 1(husband), I am of the opinion that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that she was subjected to domestic violence,” the judge said.
Also Read
The court also said held that this proceeding has been initiated only after the issuance of a notice by the woman’s husband for seeking divorce.
The woman was not entitled for any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, it said.
The court further said the argument that the woman’s daughter is unmarried and therefore maintenance may be awarded to the latter cannot be accepted.
” I do not think that the applicant is entitled to recover maintenance for major daughter,” who has an independent remedy available as per provisions of the law, the judge said.
The impugned judgment of the trial court does not require interference by the hands of this court, the judge added.
