Pune woman with kids finds court relief too meagre

Manjusha (42), while washing her clothes, found that the socks of her son, a standard IX student, were torn. When asked, Omkar told her that the soles of his shoes were torn too, but he had kept quiet since it would have been difficult for her to buy a new pair without a proper income.

Manjusha was dumbstruck on hearing this. A victim of alleged domestic violence, Manjusha has been at her wits end on how to run a family with no financial resources. She filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband, Pradip Kamble (49), after she and their two children were denied shelter by her husband.

Fed up with the alleged physical, mental and sexual harassment by her husband, Manjusha left the home, which she co-owned with her husband, in June 2008. She started staying with her uncle and aunt in their one-bedroom apartment in
Bibvewadi.

But recently, Manjusha was asked by her uncle, a retired vehicle examiner who worked for the Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited, to vacate the house, as they could not afford the monthly expenses.

Manjusha filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act to get relief from the harassment by Pradip.

Then judicial magistrate (first class), GG Itkalkar, passed an interim order that Pradip pay Rs1,000 to each to Manjusha, his son and daughter as maintenance till the final decision of the case.

But in February 2009, judicial magistrate (first class), Manik Satav, cancelled the interim order of maintenance. On the demand for shelter by Manjusha in October this year, the court ordered Pradip to pay Rs1,000 as house rent to Manjusha.

Badly in need of shelter, Manjusha said, “I have borrowed over Rs70,000 for the education of my children as my daughter, Mrunal, is studying in the first year LLB and son Omkar in standard IX.”
She said, “After his retirement from the air force, my husband has been employed as a fireman with the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, where he is earning Rs9,000 and also getting a pension of around Rs7,000, but we are struggling to survive.”

Advocate Rukmini Kori, who is pleading Manjusha’s case said, “Our very first demand is that we should get shelter as it is not appropriate for Manjusha to stay with her 18-year-old daughter, separate from her relatives as her meagre income would land her nowhere.”

“We have applied for certified copies of the order to file a revision suit in the district court,” Kori added.