A Court in Cuttack on April 24 dismissed a domestic violence complaint filed by actor Varsha Priyadarshini against her estranged husband, ex- Biju Janata Dal MP and actor Anubhav Mohanty..Judicial Magistrate First Class Jaya Ray held that the allegations made under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were vague, contradictory and not backed by credible and cogent evidence. Taking note of the timing when the complaint was filed, the Court termed Priyadarshini's complaint to be a counterblast to Mohanty's divorce petition. .The Court held that while Priyadarshini failed to establish any specific incident of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act. The judge noted that Priyadarshini had made general allegations of mental and physical torture without pointing out any concrete incidents.“She has only made a generalized statement regarding torture and the statements are self-contradictory to each other… her evidence is not only insufficient but also inconsistent,” the Court observed..The complaint was filed by Priyadarshini in 2020 under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act, seeking protection orders, monetary relief and compensation to the tune of ₹13 crore. She alleged that Mohanty and his family had mentally and physically abused her, deprived her of basic necessities and subjected her to financial exploitation by withholding her film remuneration.However, the court found that her cross-examination testimony was riddled with inconsistencies. It noted that she had failed to specify any incident or date that could substantiate her allegations of domestic violence. At one point, she admitted that she filed the case after learning of the divorce proceedings initiated by Mohanty.“After analyzing the evidences and materials on record, so adduced by both sides to this case during trial, it is found that Aggrieved Person has not mentioned any situation or particular occasion or act or cause of action from where it can be inferred that she was subjected to ‘domestic violence’ as she has only made a generalized statement regarding torture and the statements are self-contradictory to each other and it shows that the present DV application is an afterthought outcome and counter blast which is filed after knowing that her husband has filed divorce case for which she felt hurt and bad as admitted by the petitioner herself in para-16 of her cross-examination.,” the Court held..The order also recorded that Priyadarshini could not produce any proof of the ₹20 lakh remuneration she claimed was withheld by Mohanty, nor did she file any income tax documents in support of her claim.The Court also took note of a prior judgment of the Orissa High Court granting divorce to the couple on the ground that their marriage had never been consummated. It held that this fact further weakened the domestic violence claim and the allegations stemming from the nature of their relationship..In rejecting her claim for maintenance and other reliefs, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that maintenance may be denied to a spouse who is financially independent. Priyadarshini, who continues to be a working actor, was found to be financially self-sufficient and capable of maintaining herself. “The petitioner is not only a qualified lady but has been working even at the time of her marriage and thereafter. The documents and the admissions made by the petitioner clearly lead to an irresistible conclusion that she is self-employed but here is a case where in addition to be qualified, the petitioner has been working as a lead actress in the Ollywood film industry," the judge observed. .Ultimately, the Court held that the present complaint was “an afterthought outcome and counterblast” to the divorce case filed by Mohanty and that the evidence on record was insufficient to support the reliefs sought..Anubhav Mohanty was represented by advocate Vaibhav Nijhawan of Tripaksha Litigation. Priyadarshini was represented by Advocates RK Ratha and Associates. .[Read Order]
