HC relief for in-laws in domestic violence case
NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has stayed notice issued under Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, by JMFC court against a couple accused of alleged ill-treatment of their daughter-in-law. Justice Prasanna Varale also issued a notice to daughter-in-law Mamta Pandey and Maharashtra government directing them to file a reply by September 29. Rajendra Daga was counsel for the petitioners.
According to Daga, Mamta married Arun, son of Mahendra Pratap and Jayanti Pandey, both residents of Chhattisgarh, on June 27, 2007. Mamta alleged that between the period of engagement and marriage, her father had given Rs 7 lakh to her in-laws by way of demand draft as first instalment of dowry. During marriage, 25 tolas of gold were also given to Pandey family.
Arun was serving in Hyderabad where Mamta joined him after marriage. However, relations soon turned sour between married couple over alleged demand of dowry. Arun began ill-treating and harassing respondent’s wife. Arun allegedly even tried to strangulate Mamta.
Mamta’s torture continued till April 6, 2008, when Arun dropped her at her maternal home at Wadi in city apparently over her failure to bring more dowry. For about three years, she resided with her parents. On January 9 this year she filed criminal complaint against Arun and his parents under Section 498A of IPC. In the complaint she demanded a compensation of Rs 25 lakh for ill-treatment and harassment and return of gold given to Pandeys during the marriage. Additionally, she insisted on getting alimony of Rs 20,000 per month.
The JMFC court then issued notices to Arun and his parents that they challenged in the high court. Daga, pleading for Arun’s parents, contended that Mamta never resided with Mahendra Pratap and Jayanti Pandey and neither shared household. Therefore, there was no domestic relationship between Mamta and her in-laws as per Section 2f of Domestic Violence Act. He pointed out that they were related with Mamta just because of Arun. However, there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint.