A sessions court in Mumbai has ruled that a man caring for his mother can’t be considered as domestic violence against his wife. The court made this observation while dismissing a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws. The court pronounced that a man providing time and money to his mother cannot be classified as domestic violence. The charges against the respondents are insufficient and opaque and there is no evidence that the accused subjected the applicant woman to domestic abuse, per a ruling delivered on 13th February by Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit of the Dindoshi court.
The woman, an assistant in the state secretariat known as “Mantralaya” had filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act with a magistrate court, seeking an order for compensation, financial relief and protection. She claimed that her spouse had tricked her into marrying him by hiding his mother’s mental instability. The complainant further alleged that she had arguments with her husband and mother-in-law who objected to her work as well as harrassed her.
According to the woman, her husband spent September 1993 through December 2004 working overseas. He used to visit his mother in India whenever he visited India on leave and would send her Rs 10,000 annually. The woman added that he also paid for his mother’s eye surgery. She also claimed being harassed by the other members of her in-laws’ family.
On the other hand, the man refuted every accusation. He asserted that his wife resorted to making up accusations against him and never acknowledged him as her spouse. He mentioned he had petitioned a family court for a divorce as a result of her torment. Furthermore, he maintained that his wife had secretly taken out Rs 21.68 lakh from his NRE (non-resident external) account and used it to buy an apartment. The woman was granted Rs 3,000 per month in interim maintenance by the trial court (magistrate) while the appeal was pending.
After hearing all the arguments, the magistrate court rejected the lady’s petition and withdrew the temporary orders and reliefs that had been accorded to her while the case was pending after recording her testimony and that of other witnesses. The woman then went before the sessions court to file a criminal appeal. The sessions court concluded after reviewing the information that the accusations made against her in-laws are “vague and ambiguous” and that there is insufficient evidence to support the claims that they assaulted the woman.
The court highlighted, “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. 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 woman’s spouse served her with a notice of intent to file for divorce, the court explained, and only then were the proceedings initiated. It remarked that she was not eligible for any kind of redress based on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court pointed out that it could not accept the contention that because the woman’s daughter is single, the former should be granted support.
The judge stated, “I do not think that the applicant is entitled to recover maintenance for major daughter,” emphasizing that the daughter is an adult and she has an independent remedy available under the law. The judge added that the court does not need to get involved in the contested trial court’s decision.
