Pune Court: An application was allowed for exclusion of non-applicants 4-6 from a domestic violence case by the District Court.

The statement of non-applicants 4-6 was such that the Applicant and non-applicant were married of their own free will and non-applicants 4-6 had never been in a domestic relationship with the applicant. Non-applicants 4 & 5 lived in separate flats since their marriage and non-applicant 6 was married and lived with in-laws. The applicant had never made any specific allegations of domestic violence against these non-applicants. It was submitted that these non-applicants 4-6 were made parties in this case without any reason and it was prayed that the case must be dismissed against them.

On behalf of the applicant, it was argued that this Court did not have jurisdiction over this matter and further submitted that all the non-applicants have subjected the applicant to domestic violence from past 13 years only after which the applicant filed a case against them under section 498-A. It was also alleged that these non-applicants forcibly evicted the applicant along with her child and no arrangements had been made for her stay and maintenance. It was prayed that the application must be rejected.

Advocates for the non-applicants 4-6 submitted that they have been separated from the applicant from the beginning and they have been included as a party in this case only to put pressure on them. It was further submitted that since the time the applicant got married in the year 2007 till the case is filed in the year 2019 only two incidents against 4 to 6 have been mentioned and even those allegations were general in nature.

The Court after analyzing the text of the application and the statement in the application noted that addresses of the applicant and non-applicant 4-6 were different and there were no specific incidents mentioned by the applicant against non-applicants 4-6 in her statement. Thus, Court was of the view that statements made against 4 to 6 were misleading and did not include any specific allegations.

The Court further stated that from the time of marriage of the applicant in the year 2017 till the time of filing this application, the applicant does not elaborate on what time, day or period the 4 to 6 harassed the applicant. It was also held that she did not immediately take action against the non-applicants in court in connection with the incidents. it was clarified that the court has only issued notice to the non-applicants to appear in the case. Apart from that, no order has been passed against the non-applicants. Therefore, the petitioner has not challenged any order of the court in this application and according to the statement in the application; the case cannot proceed against him. Therefore, under the provisions of this Act, the Court has the power to proceed with the application and there is no need to file an appeal against it.

The application was allowed excluding non-applicants 4-6 from the case holding that the allegations made against them were vague and since no specific incident was mentioned, it was not seen that 4 to 6 had committed domestic violence against the applicant.

Advocates before the Court:

For the respondents: Advocate Mayur P Salunke and Advocate Ajinkya P Salunke

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this news.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.