MUMBAI: Observing that only because a daughter gets married, her relation with her father and siblings does not cease and she continues to have a share in the property, a magistrate’s court directed two siblings to pay Rs 8,000 every month to a 60-year-old woman who had returned to her father’s house following a spat with her husband in 1993.
The woman had moved a domestic violence complaint against her siblings and sister-in-law alleging cruelty after they repeatedly attempted to drive her out of their home and refused to give her a share from the Rs 1 lakh that the family earned from the monthly rent of the two shops their deceased father owned.
The magistrate said the family intentionally used to bring household goods there with a view to fill the house so that she would not have space, never allowed her to prepare food on the kitchen platform, and compelled her to sleep on terrace of the house.
The court said this was nothing but domestic violence against her.
“All respondents (siblings and sister-in-law) are to further restrain themselves to bring the goods in the house and not to obstruct the applicant to use the platform of kitchen and washroom and they will not dispossess her from that house,” the magistrate said.
The woman had moved court in 2014.
She submitted that until the death of her father in 2006, she was treated properly by the respondents. However, thereafter, they began to to harass her with a view to compel her to leave the house. The woman also said that the family owned another house in Pune from which they were earning a monthly rent as well.
The woman alleged on November 25, 2013, her brother told her not to live in their home, sit or sleep there and not to use the bathroom. She was not allowed to cook too.
The magistrate also directed the woman’s brother to provide monthly account related to the shops.
“All the respondents are further directed not to dispossess the applicant from the shared household or otherwise make the provision of alternative accommodation for her,” the magistrate said.
The woman’s family, however, submitted that her plea is not tenable as she was not yet divorced, therefore, the application is not maintainable as she is not the member of their family.
The woman, however, said that she had every right to reside in the household of her father.
“Being a daughter and sister, sister-in-law she is having relation with the respondents and her father. Moreover, now she is residing with them,” the magistrate said.
The woman had moved a domestic violence complaint against her siblings and sister-in-law alleging cruelty after they repeatedly attempted to drive her out of their home and refused to give her a share from the Rs 1 lakh that the family earned from the monthly rent of the two shops their deceased father owned.
The magistrate said the family intentionally used to bring household goods there with a view to fill the house so that she would not have space, never allowed her to prepare food on the kitchen platform, and compelled her to sleep on terrace of the house.
The court said this was nothing but domestic violence against her.
“All respondents (siblings and sister-in-law) are to further restrain themselves to bring the goods in the house and not to obstruct the applicant to use the platform of kitchen and washroom and they will not dispossess her from that house,” the magistrate said.
The woman had moved court in 2014.
She submitted that until the death of her father in 2006, she was treated properly by the respondents. However, thereafter, they began to to harass her with a view to compel her to leave the house. The woman also said that the family owned another house in Pune from which they were earning a monthly rent as well.
The woman alleged on November 25, 2013, her brother told her not to live in their home, sit or sleep there and not to use the bathroom. She was not allowed to cook too.
The magistrate also directed the woman’s brother to provide monthly account related to the shops.
“All the respondents are further directed not to dispossess the applicant from the shared household or otherwise make the provision of alternative accommodation for her,” the magistrate said.
The woman’s family, however, submitted that her plea is not tenable as she was not yet divorced, therefore, the application is not maintainable as she is not the member of their family.
The woman, however, said that she had every right to reside in the household of her father.
“Being a daughter and sister, sister-in-law she is having relation with the respondents and her father. Moreover, now she is residing with them,” the magistrate said.