The Sessions Court in Mumbai dismissed a woman's plea challenging a magistrate court order over her complaint against her husband and in-laws, stating that providing time and money to his mother cannot be considered domestic violence.

Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit, presiding at Dindoshi Court, issued the order on Tuesday, stating that the allegations against the respondents lacked clarity and specificity. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that they had inflicted domestic violence upon the applicant (a woman).

The woman, employed as an assistant in the 'Mantralaya' (state secretariat), had lodged a complaint with a magistrate court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. She sought an order for protection, financial assistance, and compensation.

The woman alleged that her husband concealed his mother's mental illness and deceived her into marriage. She further claimed that her mother-in-law opposed her employment and subjected her to harassment. Additionally, she asserted that both her husband and his mother engaged in quarrels with her.

The woman recounted that her husband had been residing abroad for work from September 1993 to December 2004. During his visits to India on leave, he would regularly see his mother and send her ₹10,000 annually. Additionally, he financed his mother's eye surgery, according to the woman's account. She also detailed instances of harassment by other members of her in-laws' family.

Contrary to the woman's assertions, her in-laws refuted all the allegations. The husband contended that she never acknowledged him as her husband and consistently made false accusations against him. He mentioned that he had filed for divorce in a family court due to her mistreatment.

He further alleged that his wife had withdrawn ₹21.68 lakh from his NRE (non-resident external) account without his knowledge and used the funds to purchase a flat. Meanwhile, while the woman's plea was being considered, the trial court (magistrate) granted her interim maintenance of ₹3,000 per month.

After the woman and other witnesses had presented their evidence, the magistrate court dismissed her plea and revoked the interim measures and relief granted to her during the proceedings. Subsequently, the woman lodged a criminal appeal before the sessions court. Upon reviewing the evidence, the sessions court concluded that the allegations against the respondents were "vague and ambiguous," and there was insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of domestic violence against the woman.

The court emphasized that the woman, being an assistant at Mantralaya and receiving a salary, raised grievances primarily related to her husband's provision of time and financial support to his mother, which the court deemed not constituting domestic violence.

"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," the judge said.

The court additionally noted that the initiation of this proceeding coincided with the woman's husband issuing a divorce notice. Therefore, the court concluded that the woman was not entitled to any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that maintenance should be awarded to the woman's unmarried daughter, stating that such a claim cannot be accepted.

" I do not think that the applicant is entitled to recover maintenance for major daughter," who has an independent remedy available as per the provisions of the law, the judge said.