Namrata Kapoor filed the civil suit seeking permission for her mother Urvashi Sethi to enter her apartment from which she was allegedly evicted; Sethi passed away in October, Kapoor to pursue DV case
In June 2022, the Marine Drive police booked Sumitra Sethi, 104, her son Vinay Sethi, 85, and her daughter-in-law Nabia Sethi for not allowing her 76-year-old daughter Urvashi in their home at Marine Chateau, at Marine Drive. File pic
A civil suit filed by a woman on behalf of her 76-year-old mother against her family members in the Bombay High Court was withdrawn by her last week after the death of the latter. Namrata Kapoor had filed the suit seeking permission for her mother Urvashi Sethi to enter her apartment at Marine Drive from which she was allegedly evicted. Urvashi had also sought Rs 5 crore for the mental trauma and harassment caused by her 104-year-old mother, brother and sister-in-law. Urvashi passed away in the month of October after which Namrata decided to withdraw the civil suit from the HC and continue fighting her mother’s case against family of domestic violence in the magistrates court.
The case
ADVERTISEMENT
In the month of June 2022, Marine Drive police booked Sumitra Sethi, 104, her son Vinay Sethi, 85, and her daughter-in-law Nabia Sethi under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 34 (common intention) for not allowing her 76-year-old daughter Urvashi in their home at Marine Chateau, located at Marine Drive. Namrata had claimed they were not allowed to enter home by her grandmother, uncle and aunt when they returned from hospital where her mother was under treatment for a month.
Also Read: 103-year-old woman, son, booked for chucking out daughter from Marine Drive home
In the same month, a petition was filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 by Namrata on behalf of Urvashi in Metropolitan Magistrate Court, seeking permission to enter the flat. While pronouncing interim relief, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, NU Parma mentioned that Urvashi couldn’t enter the flat but her mother and brother had to pay Rs 20,000 every month to her as maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, Namrata and her mother had filed a civil suit in the high court. Mother and daughter demanded permission to enter the flat and R5 crore for mental trauma and harassment caused by the family.
Urvashi died in the hospital on October 18 raising questions over the maintainability of the petition. The next day Namrata went to the Metropolitan Magistrate court seeking permission to continue the case after the death of her mother. In the high court, advocate for the defendants (Sethi family) cited that the suit filed by the plaintiffs (Urvashi-Namrata Kapoor) is the same as that filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate court and an interim order had been already given. The suit was just an attempt to drag the matter.
‘Will continue’
On November 19 Namrata’s lawyer withdrew their civil suit from the High Court citing they will continue to fight for justice in the magistrate’s court. According to Himaanshu Maratkar, advocate for the defendants, “The case filed in the Bombay High Court was just a repeat of what has been filed in the domestic violence court. Every time the plaintiffs go to a higher court, the zeroes in their demand increase. The plaintiffs should first prove their case and wait for inheritance to come. Unfortunately, one of the plaintiffs is no more hence there is no case. The court cannot be manipulated and used as a lottery ticket to win cases. Understanding all these facts, the plaintiffs themselves made the wise decision to withdraw this misleading petition from the court. The court disposed of the petition after understanding the factual position and delivered justice,” he said.
Ashokvardhan Purohit, advocate for the plaintiffs, said, “We have decided to withdraw the petition from the HC as the lady has passed away waiting for justice. We are pursuing other remedies that are available in law, including continuing the complaint before the Magistrate Court even after death of the victim. They [defendants] had pressed for costs in the High Court, however the submission was not entertained as we were withdrawing the petition since the petitioner was deceased.”
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
