Justice S Vimala, dismissing a revision petition filed by one Jeyanthi, said she had not proved her charges against her husband Jeyapaul. Hence the lower courts, including the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, had dismissed her plea.
The judge noted that the husband had provided for education of his daughter, who had studied B.Tech. Unable to bear his wife's harassment, he had left the house he had built by availing loan and allowed her to stay there and was also providing her Rs 900 per month.
She said provisions of the Domestic Violence Act could be used as a sword/shield to get protection from domestic violence but not used as a sword for causing violence to the other partner in one's life.
Justice Vimala noted that the petitioner had given 15 complaints against her husband in different police stations. There was no clarification as to what made her prefer such a large number of complaints, the judge said.
The judge said there was nothing to interfere with in the lower court judgement which had dismissed the woman's plea on the ground she did not prove the charge of domestic violence.
The petitioner had demanded Rs 10,000 per month from her husband who was earning Rs 22000 salary, provision for her residence and a 'pass protection order' prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence, either physically or mentally against her and daughter.