Radhe Maa discharged in domestic violence case

MUMBAI: Eight years after she was booked in a domestic violence case, a sessions court discharged Radhe Maa observing that no domestic relationship existed between her and the alleged victim.
The complainant, a now 38-year-old woman, had filed the complaint against Radhe Maa, her husband and five other family members in 2014. She had alleged her in-laws had abused her and demanded dowry at Radhe Maa's behest.
Radhe Maa had moved the sessions court in 2017 after a magistrate's court refused to drop her name from the proceedings. Setting aside the order, the sessions court recently said, "The...metropolitan magistrate...came to a wrong conclusion that the appellant original respondent number 7 (Radhe Maa) is covered under the definition of the respondent as defined in the DV (Domestic Violence) Act...I, therefore, hold that the appellant is not covered under the definition of the domestic relationship and the respondent."
Seeking a dismissal of the appeal, the purported victim submitted that Radhe Maa is believed to have powers of a Goddess and her husband and in-laws under her power used to commit acts of domestic violence. It was submitted that sometimes Radhe Maa would visit her matrimonial home and at that time, acts of domestic violence were committed. The complainant said sometimes Radhe Maa stayed with the family in the capacity of a domestic relationship. Thus, she was covered under the definition of a domestic relationship.
Radhe Maa's lawyer, though, submitted while passing the order, the magistrate had failed to consider relevant provisions of the DV Act. "Therefore, the impugned order passed by the...metropolitan magistrate is illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside and proceedings against the appellant...need to be dropped," her lawyer submitted.
The sessions court said, "There is nothing on record to indicate that the relationship with the appellant is by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is in a domestic relationship with the respondent."