Nagpur: Come to save a 71-year-old woman with seven families, Nagpur bench from the Bombay High Court has decided that their visit occasionally to his son’s house could not come in the ‘shared household’ definition.
In women’s protection from the Domestic Violence Act (DV), 2005.
While the dismissal process submitted by housewives from Washim under the DV Law against the Petitioner – His parents, Justce Manish Pitale, however, maintaining charges against husband.
While some allows requests, said the judge, “only a quick or casual life will not make households together.
Therefore, the alleged in-laws visit on vacation or vice versa, where the wife allegedly suffer from harassment, unable to come in the definition of household together, though It might bring up some other violations.
“All eight applicants moved HC through Counsel AV Band because he set aside police complaints submitted by his wife against his husband and in-laws on January 16 last year for allegedly harassing him during their visit at home.
The wife claimed that the applicant used to provoke her husband to harass it mentally, physically and psychologically.
In this case, the family of an old woman’s daughter is in Nagpur while the others in Raigad.
Applicants argue that they are residents of various places and do not live in the Matrimonial or Household House together, as claimed by the wife.
Pitale justice clarified that even if the wore’s accusation was taken like that, the applicants could not be said to have domestic relationships with it, and cannot be said that they live or live on any stage in a household together.
The judge said that the wife could not be said in the domestic relationship with the applicants, for the same reason that they could not be said to have lived at any time or currently lives in the household along with him.
“Therefore, it becomes clear that he cannot be allowed to advance further under DV acting against them,” the judge held.
The judge added that the question of the applicant caused domestic violence to the wife would depend on whether they could be said to be in domestic relationships with him and or at any stage after living in the household along with him.
“The definition of ‘Domestic Relations’ and ‘Joint Households’, and the law stipulated in the context will show that as far as the applicant is concerned, the wife cannot claim assistance in the provisions of the DV Law.” Citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja, the judge said that it was clearly putting out that the lives of a complainant woman in a household had to refer to life that had several immortality.
What HC said * Only fast life or casual does not make households together * Visits in-laws on vacations cannot come in the definition of households together * This can cause several other violations * Wives cannot be said to have been in domestic relationships with the Petitioner * He does not live with them at each stage or household together * he cannot be allowed to progress further under DV acting against them