The allegation levelled by the mother against the daughter are exaggerated and her anger and bitterness arising from matrimonial discord with her husband, is leading to serious impediment in the progress of her own daughter. This was said in the case of Vanisha v. XYZ & State of Maharashtra[WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2021] by Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale in the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
The facts of the case are that the mother had filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri, Mumbai under provisions of DV Act against her husband and their daughter. Assailing that, the daughter is seeking quashing of proceedings claiming that she is facing the ire of her mother due to matrimonial discord between her mother and her father.
The Petitioner contended that she was unnecessarily made a party to the proceedings because she continued to reside with her father. The urgency for filing the proceedings was that the petitioner had completed her engineering course and wanted to undertake further studies in Australia which was to commence from May 2021 for which a declaration was required regarding pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Secondly, it was contended that the reliefs sought in the application were all maintainable only against the husband.
On the other hand, the respondent opposing the plea contended that the petitioner was covered under the definition of ‘Respondent’ under Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act.
The Bench observed from the evidence placed before it that “the single allegation made against the petitioner is an exaggeration and it has arisen out of anger of respondent (mother) against the petitioner, as she continued to reside with her father, i.e. the husband of respondent. Respondent has developed bitterness and anger, not only against her husband but her daughter i.e. the petitioner also”.
After perusal of the application before the Magistrate, the Bench further observed that the entire grievance is raised against her own husband but it is only at one place that an allegation is made against the petitioner. The bitterness against her husband spilled over to her children, the Court said while also noting that though the younger daughter of the respondent had initially accompanied her, she was later disallowed to keep the younger daughter also with her.
On the basis of the above observations, the Court concluded that “The allegations are absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused”. It, therefore, quashed the proceedings initiated by the mother against the daughter.