Mumbai : In a recent legal development, a Mumbai local court has rejected a plea filed by a 43-year-old woman, challenging her husband and his relatives under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court ruled that the husband’s provision of time and financial support to his mother does not constitute domestic violence, emphasizing the necessity of substantiated evidence in such cases.
The additional sessions judge, Ashish Ayachit, dismissed the woman’s claims as “vague” and lacking the “confidence of truthfulness.” The court specifically pointed out that the husband’s support for his mother, even when coupled with alleged mistreatment by in-laws, did not meet the threshold for domestic violence as defined by the law. The woman had sought relief under the DV Act and claimed compensation and maintenance for her adult daughter. However, the court found that the evidence presented failed to establish the woman’s allegations.
Upon examining the case, it was revealed that the couple, married in 1993, ended their marriage in 2014 due to cruelty inflicted by the woman. The judge emphasized the lack of supporting evidence for the domestic violence claims, stating that the woman had “miserably failed” to prove her case. The court also considered counterclaims by the husband, alleging financial impropriety involving unauthorized withdrawals from his NRE account.
Throughout the legal proceedings, the woman was granted interim maintenance, but the magistrate court eventually dismissed her plea after a thorough review of the evidence. This judgment highlights the significance of substantiated evidence in domestic violence cases and underscores the need for a meticulous examination of claims before legal actions are pursued.
