Representative image
MUMBAI: In an unexpected turn, a woman’s current husband took the witness stand to depose on behalf of her ex-spouse, ending a nearly 17-year-old domestic violence case. The case, initiated in 2009 by the woman, alleged years of torture by her first husband. She sought protection and monetary relief, claiming she was ousted from her home. However, a Borivli court ruled that with her current husband confirming marriage, she was not entitled to maintenance.‘Woman married 2nd time, not entitled to maintenance’Additional chief judicial magistrate B N Chikne said, “As such, in such facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, it appears to me that it is proved from the evidence and documents produced on record, after divorce from the respondent No. 1 (ex-husband), the applicant (woman) performed a second marriage. Therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance from respondent No. 1.” The judgment centred on the revelation that the woman had entered into a second marriage while her original maintenance claim was still active.In her plea, the woman said she married her ex-husband in 2005 through an arranged setup. She alleged that she later found out that the man was already married and his first wife began to frequent their home. Along with the ex-husband, his first wife would abuse her too. She alleged numerous incidents of physical, emotional and economic abuse. In Dec 2009, the first husband was directed to pay the woman an interim monthly maintenance of Rs 3,200 until the disposal of the case. While the woman’s sister served as a witness to support her allegations, the man brought to court an imam who officiated the woman’s second marriage, a handwriting and fingerprint expert who testified on the signatures and thumb impression on the nikahnama of the second marriage, and her husband.The trajectory of the trial shifted dramatically when her ex-husband produced her current husband as a defence witness to confirm their marital status. By confirming the second marriage through the evidence of the current husband himself, the defence nullified the woman’s status as a dependent of her former spouse. The court ruled the existence of this second union, confirmed by the man who entered into it, extinguished the woman’s right to seek further maintenance or protection from her first husband.
