The woman had complained that her husband had concealed her mother-in-law's mental illness, but the sessions court in Dindoshi confirmed a magistrate's 2015 ruling dismissing her claim.

A Mumbai court declared recently, clearing a person accused of offenses under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), that a guy spending time with his mother or giving her money does not constitute domestic violence towards his wife.

At Dindoshi in Mumbai, Additional Sessions Judge Ashish Ayachit supported a magistrate's decision to reject a wife's complaint alleging her husband had committed crimes under the DV Act.

According to the complaint filed with the magistrate, the husband would often visit his mother after they moved away from her, and she would then make demands of him for money.

The sessions court stated, "It became clear from the whole evidence that her complaint is that the husband is providing time and money to his mother, which cannot be considered domestic violence."

The pair separated in January 2014 after being married in May 1992. The wife filed a lawsuit, claiming that the husband and in-laws had mistreated her both physically and mentally.

The woman further stated that her husband used to transfer money to his mother from 1996 to 2004 when he was employed overseas.

The woman appeared before the magistrate court with a plea, asking for financial, residential, and protective relief. The judge denied her request, which she then contested in sessions court.

The sessions court noted that the divorce proceedings were only started following her husband's petition for a divorce notice.

"The wife bought an apartment in her name after taking money out of the Non-Resident External (NRE) account. Her accusations are quite ambiguous, which betrays a lack of confidence in her honesty. Therefore, the claims that he was not giving the wife any financial support are unaccepted because the wife acknowledged that she had taken a payment from him, the court stated.

The wife utterly failed to establish that she was the victim of domestic abuse, thus the sessions court saw no cause to tamper with the trial court's order.