Husband Giving Time And Money To His Mother Cannot Be Considered As Domestic Violence Upon Wife: Mumbai Court

The Sessions Court at Borivali dismissed an appeal filed by a 43-year-old woman seeking relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) observing that husband giving time and money to his mother could not be considered domestic violence.

“It revealed from the entire evidence that her grievance is that, respondent No.1, husband is giving time and money to his mother, which cannot be considered as domestic violence. She made allegations that respondent No.1 when working abroad during 1996-2004, he used to send money to his mother. However, it is clearly revealed from her cross-examination that she had withdrawn amount from NRE account of respondent No.1 and purchased a flat in her name.”

Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit further noted that the woman was an 'Assistant' working in Mantralaya. She had purchased a flat in her name after drawing money from her husband's salary and initiated the DV case only after he initiated divorce proceedings.

Significantly, the man had attempted suicide 2-3 times and was granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty meted out by the wife, the judge observed.

The case dates back to 2008 when the woman had filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, accusing her husband and in-laws of mental and physical cruelty. She had sought protection, residence, monetary relief and compensation for herself and her daughter.

She alleged that her in laws concealed the mother-in-law's mental illness from her. She alleged that her husband would frequently visit the mother, send money to her and even paid for her eye operation.

The trial court, after examining the evidence, had dismissed her plea in 2015. The woman then approached the Sessions Court in 2016 challenging the trial court.

Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit observed in his judgment, "I have no hesitation to hold that this proceeding has been initiated only after issuance of notice by respondent No.1 (husband) for demanding divorce."

The court noted that after marriage in 1992, the woman moved out in 1993. “Thus, since applicant and respondents resided together only from period May1992 to May1993.  The applicant made very vague allegations which does not inspire confidence of truthfulness.”

"The applicant's entire evidence is unbelievable and untrustworthy. She has miserably failed to prove domestic violence," the judge ruled. The court noted that the daughter was a major as of now and could seek remedy independently.

Significantly, the bench took note of the grounds on which the husband was granted divorce from the family court.

“…The pleadings and evidence and admissions given in the cross-examination, lead to conclusion that respondent No.1, husband tried to commit suicide on 23 occasions.   It is matter of record that their marriage has been dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act on the reason of cruelty by wife.”