The Court said that the claims made under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were not clearly explained and had no proper evidence.
Cuttack, Odisha: A Court in Cuttack has dismissed a domestic violence complaint filed by Ollywood actress Varsha Priyadarshini against her estranged husband, actor and former BJD MP Anubhav Mohanty.
The case was rejected on April 24 by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Jaya Ray, who said the complaint lacked solid proof and had many contradictions.
The Court said that the claims made under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were not clearly explained and had no proper evidence.
“She has only made a generalized statement regarding torture and the statements are self-contradictory to each other… her evidence is not only insufficient but also inconsistent,” the Court noted.
The complaint was seen as a response to Mohanty’s earlier divorce case. The Court said the timing of the case appeared to be a reaction.
“It shows that the present DV application is an afterthought outcome and counter blast which is filed after knowing that her husband has filed divorce case for which she felt hurt and bad as admitted by the petitioner herself in para-16 of her cross-examination.”
JMFC Jaya Ray pointed out that Varsha did not give any specific incident or date that could prove domestic violence as per Section 3 of the Act. The Court said her statements were general in nature and lacked proper support.
“After analyzing the evidences and materials on record, so adduced by both sides to this case during trial, it is found that Aggrieved Person has not mentioned any situation or particular occasion or act or cause of action from where it can be inferred that she was subjected to ‘domestic violence’ as she has only made a generalized statement regarding torture and the statements are self-contradictory to each other and it shows that the present DV application is an afterthought outcome and counter blast which is filed after knowing that her husband has filed divorce case for which she felt hurt and bad as admitted by the petitioner herself in para-16 of her cross-examination.”
In 2020, Varsha had filed the complaint under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the DV Act, demanding protection, maintenance, and Rs. 13 crore as compensation. She accused Mohanty and his family of mentally and physically torturing her, denying her basic needs, and holding back her movie payments.
ALSO READ: “Domestic Violence & Section 498A IPC are the Most Abused Provisions”: Supreme Court
But the Court said her evidence during cross-examination was full of contradictions. She couldn’t name any particular date or incident and admitted that she filed the case after learning that Mohanty had filed for divorce.
She also claimed that Mohanty had withheld Rs.20 lakh of her film remuneration. But the Court noted she didn’t provide any documentary proof like income tax returns to support this.
The Court also mentioned a previous Orissa High Court ruling that had granted divorce to the couple, stating that their marriage was never consummated. This fact, the judge said, made her claims of domestic violence even weaker.
Varsha’s request for monthly maintenance and other financial reliefs was also rejected. The Court cited Supreme Court rulings that say maintenance can be denied if the spouse is earning and able to support themselves.
“The petitioner is not only a qualified lady but has been working even at the time of her marriage and thereafter. The documents and the admissions made by the petitioner clearly lead to an irresistible conclusion that she is self-employed but here is a case where in addition to be qualified, the petitioner has been working as a lead actress in the Ollywood film industry,” the judge said.
In the end, the Court ruled that Varsha’s complaint was not backed by proper proof and seemed like an emotional reaction to the divorce filed by Anubhav Mohanty. The case was dismissed, and none of the reliefs she asked for were granted.
“She has only made a generalized statement regarding torture and the statements are self-contradictory to each other… her evidence is not only insufficient but also inconsistent,” the Court reiterated.
- Anubhav Mohanty was represented by Advocate Vaibhav Nijhawan from Tripaksha Litigation.
- Varsha Priyadarshini was represented by RK Ratha and Associates.
View Order
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
