Judge RM Joshi reversed a case against a woman’s parents-in-law who live far away but were named in the case against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and other distant relatives.
Keywords:- Bombay High Court, Domestic Violence ,Judge RM Joshi
On July 18, a single judge led by Judge RM Joshi issued an order on criminal charges against two brothers-in-law and a sister-in-law named by the woman in a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. The Aurangabad Court of the Bombay High Court recently found that an estranged wife abused provisions of the Women’s Protection from Domestic Violence Act 2005 to file a lawsuit against her husband and her family, including distant relatives. He expressed concern about trends. she didn’t live with him. On July 18, a single judge led by Judge RM Joshi issued an order seeking the removal of the defendants in criminal charges against two brothers-in-law and sister-in-law named by a woman in a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. issued. the lawsuit against them. The court found that “not only are husbands and joint family members living under the same roof as defendants, but also distant relatives who are not in a domestic relationship can be used to incite harassment and pressure against estranged husbands. ‘ said. Attorney G.J. Kolle argued that she did not have a domestic relationship within the meaning of her law with this woman because they were not with her. The domestic relationship between the victim and the defendant is an essential element in maintaining proceedings under domestic violence law and they have to live together. The courts rule that if they are related by blood, marriage, or of any nature such as marriage or adoption, they belong to or live in a common household at any given time, and “families living together as a common family.” said. The court added that the relationship between the applicant and the three petitioners was family. However, in order to establish a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act and maintain a complaint, the victim had to live with the victim as a “communal family,” which was not the case. The proceedings by a first-degree judicial judge were overturned and stayed. The court also ruled that the applications of her husband, her mother-in-law, and her third brother-in-law were also withdrawn.
REFERENCES ;
written by – Meghana Mathapati , college name – KLE law college Bangalore, semester – 5th
