The court ruled that being a family and being in a domestic relationship are two separate terms. Kanupriya Kejriwal, a senior citizen couples lawyer, pleaded to have their names removed from the womans petition.
MUMBAI: The family court has stated that since the two parties have been living separately since the wedding in 2010, no domestic relationship exists between them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA).Kanupriya Kejriwal, a senior citizen couples' lawyer, pleaded to have their names removed from the woman's petition.The court ruled that being a family and being in a domestic relationship are two separate terms.In the case espèce, the applicant woman and the non-applicant number 1 her husband were residing separately from the non-applicant numbers 2 father-in-law and 3 mother-in-law since their marriage.
The 42-year-old woman, who is in the midst of a divorce battle with her husband and in-laws, had cited physical torture and emotional distress by her husband and in-laws as reasons for her claims, including Rs 25 crore in compensation and a flat of her choosing on Nepean Sea Road.The divorced couple also have a child.On Nepean Sea Road, the mother and her son are presently living.The court accepted Kejriwals' arguments that mere visits by the in-laws to the house where the woman formerly lived with their son was insufficient to conclude that they shared the same household or were in a domestic relationship with her. They lived at Mahalaxmi until the woman and her husband divorced in 2017.The father-in-laws office he visited daily, and a temple that her mother-in-law frequented were also housed in their house.The woman explained that her father-in-law was operating the company and, therefore, causing economic harm.She said she had to seek permission from her father-in-law for a variety of expenses. The woman said that her in-laws never supported her when her husband was ill treating her, among other complaints.The woman said that her in-laws interfered in her life on a daily basis.However, the court stated that such claims by the applicant would be covered by the PWDVA provisions only if non-applicant numbers 2 and 3 were living under one roof as a joint family with her.