Interfering in private life also a type of domestic violence: Mumbai court
Aishwariya got married to Shranyan in June 2010 and the couple has a daughter. But in 2014, Aishwariya left their house in Chennai, alleging domestic violence.mumbai Updated: Aug 09, 2017 15:13 IST
Interfering in a couple’s private life is a type of domestic violence, just like mental and physical torture, a sessions court held on Wednesday and asked a Chennai-based film producer and the son of a former high court judge to pay a maintenance sum to his wife in Mumbai.
NR Shranyan and his parents – Malathi Raghavan and ND Raghavan, the retired HC judge, had approached the Mumbai sessions court challenging an order of the Magistrate court, Kurla, that asked them to pay interim maintenance to Shranyan’s wife Aishwariya, who had filed a case of domestic violence against the family last year.
Aishwariya said she got married to Shranyan in June 2010 and the couple has a daughter. But in 2014, Aishwariya left their house in Chennai and came to Mumbai, alleging domestic violence.
In her complaint, Aishwariya alleged she was misled about the family’s wealth — she was told the family was well-settled with three theatres in Chennai and Shranyan had his own IT firm but she found out the theatres were owned by other family members and the IT business was not doing well.
Aishwariya claimed the husband led a lavish lifestyle. He had multiple cars and spent a lot of money, but allegedly refused to give her money, she said. She also claimed her mother-in-law would ask her details about her “bedroom life with her husband”.
The Magistrate court had asked the husband to pay Rs12,000 for Aishwariya and Rs8,000 for the daughter every month. But the husband’s family challenged the order before the sessions court alleging and called all of Aishwariya’s allegations imaginary. The family also claimed she was not entitled to any maintenance as she worked at a multinational company and got a salary of Rs25,000.
After hearing both sides the court said the evidence on allegations of domestic violence could be dealt with later but added that considering the lifestyle of the family, the order passed by the magistrate court was not wrong.
“The husband is running an IT consultancy company. He was a producer of a movie. It is not believable that he has no money. Wife said their lifestyle was lavish. They have multiple cars, their expenses are much. At interim stage, there is no reason to disbelieve her,” the court said.
“Considering the high status of respondents, a harassment of a smaller degree as compared to other families could seem more serious,” observed additional sessions judge MB Datye, while rejecting the appeal filed by the husband.