92-year-old woman’s grandson, his wife penalised for inflicting mental torture

MUMBAI: A city court has ruled in favour of a 92-yearold Worli resident, one of the oldest complainants in a domestic violence case, who moved the court against her grand-daughter-in-law and grandson for continuously threatening to send her to an old-age home and subjecting her to other forms of

mental torture

.


The court, while restraining the young couple from mentally harassing and humiliating the nonagenarian, also ordered them to pay her Rs50,000 as compensation for causing her mental agony. “The applicant is a 92-yearold lady and it has (been) proved that she has received (sic) domestic violence at the hands of respondents (grand-daughter-in-law and grandson) and is humiliated from the respondents passing comments on her old age, that applicant should (be) send (sic) to v rudhashram (old-age home),” the metropolitan magistrate said. The court, however, did not agree with the woman’s plea to make the young couple, a businessman and an accountant, vacate the home owned by her.

The woman submitted the complaint before the court in December 2016. She said her husband died on June 25, 1949. She further stated that her son has two children, a son and a daughter, and her grandson married in November 2010. The woman alleged that the grand-daughter-in-law refused to listen to her and would instigate her grandson against her. She said the grand-daughter-in-law started insulting her, so family members held a meeting to resolve the matter. But the harassment continued. The woman said on one occasion, when her son and daughter-in-law had gone to their native place, the granddaughter-in-law served her spoiled food and when she protested, insulted her.

The woman said the grand-daughter-in-law would leave her daughter in her care. When the woman expressed her inability to take

care

of her great-grandchild, the young couple scolded her. The woman said that the grand-daughter-in-law went to her parental home, so she decided to hold the meeting to resolve the matter. She alleged that in that meeting, the grand-daughter-inlaw brought some workers from an organisation to pressure her into vacating the flat and threatened to file a case against her if she refused. In another meeting held at the house of a relative of the grand-daughter-in law in July 2016, the latter is alleged to have threatened her to go live in an old-age home or face consequences.

Unable to be physically present in court due to her age, the woman adduced her evidence through her son, who was given the power of attorney to handle the matter on her behalf.

The court found the entire evidence remained unchallenged. “Since there is no rebuttal on record to the evidence and the case of applicant I have no hesitation to rely upon the adduced evidence,” the court said.