The 22-year-old girl had moved the high court seeking action against her UK-based NRI husband and in-laws, who allegedly threw her out of the matrimonial home a few months after the marriage.
“Don’t run after a dead marriage” was a suggestion given by a division bench of the Bombay high court to a 22-year-old Borivli girl.
The girl, member of a reputed family, had moved the high court seeking action against her UK-based NRI husband and in-laws, who allegedly threw her out of the matrimonial home a few months after the marriage.
A division bench of justice BH Marlapalle and justice Anoop Mohta put the suggestion as the provisions in law will not be of much help to the girl.
“There will be a jurisdiction problem. You should rather move to family court and seek divorce. Why do you want to run after a dead marriage? It will not earn any results,” remarked the judges.
The girl has alleged that after her marriage in March 2008, her husband and in-laws called her to their London home.
“Immediately after reaching London, I was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. In December 2008, I was driven out of the house,” reads the petition. The girl has now sought directives to Borivli police, who have not taken any action except registering an FIR.
“The court may direct the ministry of external affairs (MEA) to seize the passport of the husband and get him back to India and initiate
action against him,” argued SV Sadavarte, advocate for the petitioner.
The girl came back to her parent’s home in Borivli in December 2008. A first complaint was registered at the Borivli police station in March 2009. The police had then sent a notice to the Scotland Yard police, but their response is awaited.
The girl registered a separate case under section 498(A) of the IPC in May 2009. Due to the unavailability of the accused, the police are yet to take any action in the case. Also, a case under the Domestic Violence Act has been filed against the husband and in-laws.
Additional public prosecutor Ajay Gadkari told the court the FIR had already been registered. “We can, at the most, file an ‘A’ summary case,” Gadkari told the court.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the court should instead provide machinery, which can bring the husband back to the
country and put him on trial.
The court will hear the case after two weeks.
){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}
){kind=small}