Justice Madhumita Mitra of the Calcutta HC upheld the order of the Sessions Court which in turn dismissed the plea against the order passed by the Magistrate which had directed the petitioner to provide monthly expense for the mother and her medical expenses
Abdulla Rahamani and K Basar Bulbul represented the petitioner and submitted to the court that the petitioner and the respondent were in an ongoing dispute regarding their land. The respondent was the mother of the petitioner and aided by his two other brothers, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming various reliefs. The Magistrate after hearing the cases passed an order in favor of the respondent. The petitioner further claimed that the dispute was purely civil in nature and the claim of the respondent as “aggrieved person” as stated in the DV Act.
The Court considered the claim of physical and mental torture inflicted upon the respondent and said “Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005 has defined the term ‘aggrieved person’. ‘Aggrieved Person’ means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent... Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005 defines ‘domestic relationship’. Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.” The court observed that in the present case, the parties to the case live in the same residence. Upon examining economic conditions and all the arguments submitted to the court, it upheld the entitlement of the respondent in getting reliefs prescribed under the DV Act thus dismissing the interim application.
Goutam Chanda v. Gouri Ram Chandan, CRR No. 2126 of 2015