Delhi court rejects woman’s domestic violence appeal, citing lack of evidence and warning against misuse of legal provisions.
Delhi court upholds magistrate’s order dismissing woman’s domestic violence plea, citing no proof to support her allegations (Photo: Pinterest)
New Delhi: A Delhi court has dismissed a woman’s appeal against a magistrate’s order rejecting her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, who was hearing the woman’s appeal against the magisterial court‘s February order, said the protection under the Act could not be provided to those who misuse its provisions by making exaggerated or unsubstantiated allegations.
In an order dated October 8, the court said, “It has been alleged by the complainant that she was being harassed and beaten by all the respondents (her husband and his relatives), and that she had been kept in a dark room and also not given food and water.”
It said the woman had also alleged that she was regularly beaten up, besides being subjected to mental cruelty.
“However, the record reveals that no medical document, photograph or any other material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations of physical violence, and the complainant has not examined any independent witness to corroborate her version,” the court said.
It said despite the allegation of physical cruelty, the woman did not submit any evidence of having informed police about it.
“The conduct of the complainant, in remaining silent for a considerable period, casts serious doubt upon the veracity of her allegations,” the court said.
It said the woman had to build a strong case with concrete evidence, as mere allegations were insufficient.
Concurring with the magistrate’s order, the court said it was rightly observed that mere oral allegations, unsupported by cogent evidence, could not be made the basis to presume acts of domestic violence and the burden was upon the complainant to prima facie establish her case.
The court said during her cross-examination, the complainant deposed that her date of birth was January 1, 1992, and that she could prove it by submitting her matriculation certificate.
But she failed to produce the document, the court pointed out, adding, “The discovery of a forged or deliberately-withheld document is an example of a material contradiction, and non-production of a document during cross-examination can cast doubt on the party’s credibility and weaken her overall testimony.”
