Delete names of elderly Couple from Domestic Violence plea: Court

  

In a significant order granting relief to an 83-year-old Breach Candy businessman & his 76-year-old wife in a domestic violence application filed by their estranged daughter-in-law, the family court has clarified that since the two parties have been living separately since the wedding in 2010, no domestic relationship exists between them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA).

The Court allowed a plea moved by the senior citizen couple’s counsel, Kanupriya Kejriwal, to have their names deleted from the woman’s application. The Court held that being relatives & being in domestic relationship are two different concepts. “In the case in hand, the applicant [woman] & the non-applicant number 1 [her husband], since their marriage, were residing separately from the non-applicant numbers 2 [father-in-law] & 3 [mother-in-law]. Therefore, the applicant & non-applicant number 1 cannot be said to be having a domestic relationship with non-applicant numbers 2 & 3, according to the PWDVA,” Judge Swati Chauhan said.

The 42-year-old woman, who is in the midst of a divorce battle with the couple’s son, had cited mental torture & emotional distress by her husband & in-laws & had claimed Rs 25 crore compensation & a flat of her choice at Nepean Sea Road. The estranged couple also has a child. The woman currently lives with her parents & son at Nepean Sea Road.

The court accepted Kejriwal’s arguments that mere visits by the in-laws to the premises where the woman was formerly residing with their son, was not sufficient to hold that they shared the same household or were in a domestic relationship with her. Kejriwal also submitted that the woman herself had accepted that they had always lived in separate homes. Until the woman & her husband separated in 2017, they lived at Mahalaxmi. Their building also housed the father-in-law’s office that he visited daily & a temple that her mother-in-law frequented.

The woman also alleged her father-in-law was controlling the business, hence, causing economic abuse. She claimed that she had to take permission from the father-in-law for various expenses. The family court, however, said, “For attracting the provisions of the PWDVA, the criteria is not joint business, but living together jointly under one roof.”

Among various grievances, the woman also alleged that her in-laws never protected or supported her when her husband was ill-treating her. The woman also claimed that her in-laws intruded in her life on a daily basis. But the court said: “These grievances of the applicant would be covered under the provisions of the PWDVA, only if non-applicant numbers 2 & 3 were staying under one roof as a joint family with her.”

Source Link 

Social media is bold.


Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  


    We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure