E-Paper
IT professional booked after former wife files abuse case
Complainant stated that her former husband’s family wanted to ‘try’ her out for six months and had therefore refused to register the marriage in the first six months.
Pune A senior consultant at a multi-national information technology firm was booked late on Saturday by city police for domestic violence against his former wife. Identified as Anmol Bhojne, the man in his 30s was booked along with three other members of his family.
The complainant, Gauri Bhojne, had approached the state women’s commission around two months ago and has been in consultation with the police since then.
Bhojne and his brother hit the complainant woman and verbally abused her as well, according to the complainant in the case.
Gauri in her statement has said that her former husband’s family wanted to ‘try’ her out for six months and had therefore refused to register the marriage in the first six months. The complainant, however, claims that she lived in the house for close to four months in 2017.
According to the complaint, Anmol’s mother and sister had told Gauri that she does not match their status and Anmol had threatened her and her family.
Anmol and Gauri had been called for various sessions of counselling at the women’s grievance cell of Pune police in the past weeks, but it changed nothing. Subsequently, a case under Sections 498(a) (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (insult with an intent of provoking breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code was registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth police station.
In July 2017, the Supreme Court had presented a set of guidelines with regard to domestic violence. It was met with outrage from social activists who said that laws were made less effective with these guidelines. One of the guidelines prevented immediate arrest of people named in a domestic violence case. In another order in this regard in September 2018, the Supreme Court retained the guidelines.
