Bombay High Court’s Stance on Marathi Expressions in Domestic Disputes
The Bombay High Court recently clarified its stance on the use of certain Marathi expressions in the context of domestic disputes. The court emphasized that the Marathi phrase
“Tula akkal nahi, tu vedi ahes,”
which translates to
“you have no brains, you are crazy,”
cannot be deemed abusive without understanding the context in which it was used. The bench, comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and Sharmila Deshmukh, stated,
“By no stretch of the imagination, it can be said that calling the wife ‘tula akkal nahi, tu vedi ahes’ in Marathi amounts to abuse in filthy language.”
Highlighting the cultural nuances, the court pointed out that such expressions are frequently used among Maharashtrians, irrespective of their societal strata. These utterances cannot be labeled as abusive unless there’s clear evidence indicating an intention to insult or humiliate. The court’s statement came in the backdrop of a divorce case where the wife accused her husband of verbal abuse using the aforementioned phrase. However, she failed to provide specific details or contexts in which these words were used, leading the court to conclude that merely using these words doesn’t equate to abusive language.
The couple, who tied the knot in 2007, began facing marital discord shortly after their wedding. The husband argued that his wife was aware they’d be living with his family, but she started expressing discontent post-marriage. He further alleged that she showed disrespect towards his parents and eventually left their shared home. On the other hand, the wife described her marital experience as a nightmare, accusing her husband and in-laws of mistreatment. She claimed that her husband abandoned her at her parents’ home in 2009, after which they lived separately.
Adding another layer to their dispute, the husband, who ran in a local Municipal election in 2012, highlighted an FIR filed against him by his wife in 2013. This complaint was lodged while their divorce proceedings, initiated in 2009, were still underway. He contended that the baseless allegations in the FIR had severely damaged his family’s reputation, amounting to cruelty.
Upon examining the FIR, the High Court found discrepancies between the wife’s accusations and her testimony during the trial. The court concluded that making unfounded allegations, especially concerning illicit relationships, dowry demands, and physical assault, without concrete evidence, constitutes cruelty. This perspective is particularly relevant given the affluent background of both parties.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of understanding cultural and linguistic nuances in legal disputes. It also serves as a reminder that allegations, especially in sensitive matters like domestic disputes, should be backed by substantial evidence to be deemed credible.
