The case, adjudicated by Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit of the Dindoshi court, revolved around the woman’s claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected an appeal by a woman who contested a magistrate court’s decision concerning her allegations against her husband and in-laws.
The case, adjudicated by Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit of the Dindoshi court, revolved around the woman’s claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The judge’s ruling emphasized that
“a man giving time and money to his mother cannot be considered as domestic violence,”
spotlighting the nuanced interpretation of domestic violence under the law.
ALSO READ:- Supreme Court to Review if Divorced Muslim Women Can Seek Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
The appellant, employed as an assistant in the ‘Mantralaya’ (state secretariat), had sought judicial intervention for protection, monetary relief, and compensation, alleging her husband’s marriage under false pretenses regarding his mother’s mental health.
Furthermore, she accused her mother-in-law of opposing her employment and subjecting her to harassment, alongside other familial disputes. Her allegations extended to financial grievances, including her husband’s financial support to his mother during his overseas employment and subsequent withdrawal of a substantial sum from his non-resident external (NRE) account.
Contrary to the woman’s claims, her in-laws refuted all allegations, painting a picture of marital discord rooted in acceptance and fidelity issues. The husband’s defense highlighted his estrangement and legal actions stemming from the alleged cruelties faced, underscoring the complexity of familial and marital disputes.
ALSO READ:- Chief Justice’s Remarks on Traffic Disruption in Delhi-NCR Caused by Farmers Protest
The court’s analysis of the evidence led to the conclusion that the allegations were “vague and ambiguous,” with no substantial proof of domestic violence. Judge Ayachit pointed out,
“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.”
This statement underscores the court’s stance on distinguishing between familial obligations and acts of domestic violence.
In a detailed examination of the testimonies, the court found the applicant’s claims insufficient to establish a case of domestic violence, stating,
“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.”
This decision highlights the judicial emphasis on concrete evidence over allegations in domestic violence cases.
ALSO READ:- #BREAKING Gujarat Government Appeals to Drop ‘Adverse Comments’ in Bilkis Bano Case Judgement
Additionally, the court addressed the timing of the proceedings, initiated post the husband’s divorce notice, and the plea for maintenance for the couple’s unmarried daughter, concluding that the latter does not qualify for maintenance under the circumstances, given the legal provisions for independent recourse.
This ruling not only reaffirms the legal standards for proving domestic violence but also sheds light on the judicial process in marital disputes. The dismissal of the woman’s appeal, backed by the rationale that supporting one’s mother does not equate to domestic violence, sets a precedent in interpreting the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court’s decision underscores the importance of specificity and evidence in legal claims, marking a significant moment in the discourse on domestic violence and familial responsibilities.
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Follow on Youtube