AHMEDABAD: It was an unusual legal fight where a woman was engaged in a fierce battle with her in-laws, desperately wishing to relinquish her husband’s custody. The wife finally succeeded in distancing herself after she told the appellate court that only one of them would survive if she and her husband were forced to live together based on a lower court order!
This case involved Savita, 40, and her husband Akha Chauhan, 42, an SRP jawan, from Rapar in Kutch district. One decade into the marriage, Savita left her matrimonial home complaining about her husband’s mental state. The husband allegedly continued to harass her. In May 2020, he pelted stones on her house. Once, he even attempted self immolation but the wife saved him with help from neighbours.
Finally, on June 2, 2020, she filed a police complaint citing harassment by her husband. After medical check-up which revealed the husband suffered from psychosis, he was put him in a mental hospital in Bhuj for treatment. A month later, the hospital authorities told the magisterial court in Rapar that Chauhan had become better and his guardians should be told to take his custody.
The magisterial court told Savita that she should go to the mental hospital and get her husband back. She refused and told the court that they cannot live together under one roof. The court reiterated that a wife is the best person to take the responsibility of guardian to her husband. On July 24, the court passed an order stating that Savita should get her husband’s custody under provisions of the Mental Health Act.
The wife challenged this order through her advocate, Navin Miyotra, in a sessions court in Bhachau.
She asserted that she is poor and cannot maintain her husband.
He had been living with his mother and brothers and they looked after his finances. Their relationship as husband and wife had ended long ago and if the court forced them to live together, it was possible that one of them would lose their life.
On the other hand, Chauhan’s family told the court that Savita should forgo her right to alimony if she refused custody of her husband. Her lawyer argued that Chauhan was healthy and had resumed duty with the SRP and the court cannot appoint a guardian for a sane person who is an adult.
After hearing the case, the sessions court recently accepted the wife’s argument that there was no question of appointing her guardian of her husband as they did not get along and particularly when the man was declared mentally fit. As Chauhan was cured of his illness and resumed duty, the magisterial court’s decision ordering Savita to take her husband’s custody was quashed.