Shatnamkaur Chabda had filed a complaint against her husband, Kulbir Sinh Chabda, alleging that she had been mentally and physically harassed by him and his sisters for dowry.
After two years of legal wrangles, a woman who had filed a complaint in the metropolitan court accusing her husband of domestic violence, has filed an interim application seeking compensation from her husband as the case has taken a lot of time.
According to case details, Shatnamkaur Chabda had filed a complaint against her husband, Kulbir Sinh Chabda, alleging that she had been mentally and physically harassed by him and his sisters for dowry.
In her complaint filed in December 2007, she also alleged that her in-laws had harassed and abused her. She said that she had been thrown out of her home by her in-laws. The metropolitan court had then directed that Shatnamkaur be paid Rs2,500 by her husband and an additional Rs25,000 for grievance caused to her. The court had also directed the police to drop her at the home of her in-laws.
However, her husband had later filed an application in court seeking that charges against his two sisters be dropped on the ground that a complaint can only be filed against a man, and not a woman, under the Domestic Violence Act.
The metropolitan court had turned the prayer after the accused had filed a revision application in the sessions court, challenging the order of the Metropolitan court. The sessions court directed that the matter be heard by the metropolitan court and the case papers were sent back to the concerned court.
In April 2009, Shatnamkaur filed an interim application in the metropolitan court through advocate Gulab Khan Pathan, praying that considering the time taken on her application and the situation revolving around it, the husband should provide Rs5,000 per month for her maintenance.
Shatnamkaur said in the application that the accused in the matter had been attempting to evade their responsibility, for which reason they had deliberately been trying to take more time on the application.
She further said that her husband ran a tuition class, which provided an income of Rs30,000 per month, whereas she had no means of income. The metropolitan court posted the matter on July 15.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}