Court. So far as the alleged incidents that occurred in India were concerned, the same did not come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined in the D.V. Act. Here, the specific allegations were, inter alia, that the husband’s father misbehaved with the wife’s family members, the mother-inlaw requested the lady to hand over her wedding gifts and jewelleries to her for safe custody and the husband did not want to live in his in-law’s house on Ashtamangala. The learned Magistrate while directing payment of monetary interim relief and sum for expenses for alternative accommodation to the wife, did not take into consideration the written objection filed on behalf of the husband. The learned Sessions Judge, in revision, erroneously opined that the wife was subjected to physical torture, which was never the case. The periods for which the couple stayed together should also be a consideration while adjudicating the case under the D.V. Act. The couple hardly lived together for any considerable length of time in the instant case. In Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha, 2018 (7) Supreme 121, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that proceedings under the D.V. Act were summary in nature and it was not expedient that an amount of maintenance be awarded in such proceedings on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. The husband was employed at a financial institution in New York, USA and drew a salary of Rs. 4,85,180.397/- (when converted into Rupees), which is per month, which is equivalent to about Rs. 85,872/-, considering the cost of living and high price index of living in New York vis a vis Kolkata. Therefore, the sum granted as interim relief to the wife, even by the Learned Revisional Court, is far too excessive. At the stage of interim relief, the
