Judicial Magistrate (First Class) K M Pingale observed that the acts alleged by the woman don’t fall under within the purview of domestic violence as both parties did not live together at the time of the alleged incidents
An application of domestic violence for monthly maintenance filed by a 77-year-old woman and her daughter against her two sons, was rejected by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) K M Pingale last Friday. She observed that the acts alleged by her don’t fall within the purview of domestic violence as both parties did not live in a shared household at the time of the alleged incidents. Pingale also observed that the alleged incidents occurred due to family disputes between the parties on account of their property and business.
The Magistrate observed that the applicant failed to prove domestic violence by her sons. Pic for representation/ Thinkstock images
Aundh-based (all names change to protect their identities) Moti Patil (77), along with her daughter, Sona (51), had moved an application before the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) on March 22, 2011, against (Moti’s sons) Ahmednagar-based doctor, Amit, and lawyer, Milind, under relevant sections of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
As per Moti’s plaint, ‘Moti’s husband was a lawyer and died in July, 2004. She stays on rent in an Aundh society with her divorced daughter Sona and a maid. The Patils own a bungalow in Kopargaon where Moti stayed till 2010. She was looking after agricultural land and earned money by cultivating vegetables. Soon after her husband’s death both her sons abused and beat her. Later they forced her to transfer her property in their names. They harassed and ill-treated her. In 2010, they forcefully broke into the bungalow when Moti was out. When she returned, they abused and beat her and took away expensive items and jewellery. She registered a police complaint.’
Moti had pleaded that she needs Rs 50,000 per month for her accommodation, medicine and other expenses, as she also pays Rs 10,000 to the maid. Moti claimed that her second son, who is lawyer, had sold their flour mill for Rs 80 lakh, and she sought a share.
Moti’s sons’ lawyer Pratibha Ghorpade denied the allegations made by her and argued, “The incident of offence which Moti is talking about has taken place in Kopargaon in Ahmednagar district, and this court has no jurisdiction there. Moti is involved with agricultural activities and earning lakhs of rupees and her daughter is also an advocate and earns.
She is also divorced and not liable for maintenance. Moti also has a grocery store and owns a travel and tour company in Pune. There is a dispute about their ancestral property in the Ahmednagar court. There is no question of domestic violence as both the parties stay in different houses.” Magistrate Pingale observed, “Both the applicant and respondent were not residing together in a shared household at the time of the alleged incidents.
All the alleged incidents occurred due to family disputes between the parties on account of their property and business shares. The alleged incident required strict proof corroborating it. Moti has admitted that at the time of the acts, her sons were not residing with them. That means, the parties were not residing under one roof and hence, strict proof is required of the alleged incidents. Moti has failed to prove domestic violence at the hands of her sons. Hence, she and Sona are not entitled to get any relief from her sons.”