Kashish Jain
Recently the Bombay High Court quashed domestic violence proceedings registered by a mother against her 23-year-old daughter. The Court observed that the daughter was “caught in a crossfire of acrimony and matrimonial discord” between her parents.
The Court noted that the statements the mother made about the daughter having multiple boyfriends were nothing but an exaggeration.
It also observed that the single allegation made by the mother about the daughter assaulting the former was ‘inherently improbable.’
Thus the Court believed that the daughter deserved to get relief.
The court also held that such allegations had arisen out of anger of the woman against her daughter as she continued to stay with her father.
A division bench of Justice S S Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale passed a ruling on a writ petition by the daughter, who sought directions to quash a domestic violence case against her.
Advocate Kenny Thakkar for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act was initiated against the husband of the respondent woman and the daughter was unnecessarily made a party to the case, as she continued to stay with her father.
She submitted that the mother’s complaint mostly comprised of offenses committed by the father and the single allegation of violence against the daughter was without corroboration. This, the case against the daughter was not maintainable.
Thakkar also submitted that the daughter wanted to go to Australia to pursue further education from May 2021 and the criminal proceedings would prevent her from applying for a visa.
Advocate M Moses represents the respondent, the mother in this familial dynamic. The respondent’s submissions were that the daughter only sought relief on the pretext of visiting Australia as she wished to escape the prosecution.
He submitted photographs that supported the claims of assault by the daughter and sought dismissal of the plea. The court also noted that there are certain statements made about the character of the petitioner and that she allegedly has many boyfriends.
Justice Pitale observed,
“The petitioner is a young woman, who has just graduated and her future depends upon how she can improve her educational qualifications and develop her personality. It is only in the interest of justice, that this aspect of the matter is also taken into consideration. Surprisingly, her mother is hell-bent upon creating obstructions in her progress.”
“The material on record indicates that the bitterness in the matrimonial relationship has spiked over to the children, particularly against the petitioner. This has resulted in the said exaggerated statement and single allegation leveled against the petitioner about the alleged assault on the respondent mother.”
