Udaipur court summons Congress’s Vikramaditya, Pratibha Singh in domestic violence case

Two separate cases are being heard in Udaipur. The first case being heard in ACJM Court 2 relates to domestic violence where the court has summoned Vikramaditya, Pratibha, Virbhadra’s daughter Aparajita Singh, her husband Angad Singh, and one Amreen.

The second case is for maintenance and is being heard in a family court where only Vikramaditya has been summoned.

Vikramaditya said, “This is a family matter, which is currently sub judice. There are issues that can occur in any family and we will resolve the matter peacefully through legal mediation.”

While the summons was for December 14, regular court function has been disrupted due to a strike by court employees since November 30. “Hence, the summons is now for January 13 for the domestic violence case and January 20 for the maintenance case,” Deora said.

Deora said a third complaint under IPC Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), which was filed at the Mahila thana in Udaipur, is at a “counselling stage”. In some cases, women are made to undergo counselling before an FIR under 498A is filed.

Meanwhile, some posts appeared on social media, claiming that non-bailable warrants had been issued in the case. Vikramaditya, however, said the information had been erroneously uploaded on the court website.

“There was no order passed by the court regarding issuance of non-bailable warrants. Rather, we have accepted the notices. We are not evading the law. There has been no default on our part, so there is no question of issuing warrants against us,” said Vikramaditya in a statement.

The application has been allowed and the correct information has now been uploaded and reflected on the court website and is available for verification, he added.

Sudarshana hails from Amet in Udaipur, which is the thikana (estate) of the Chundawat clan, who are Rajputs.

In her complaint to the Udaipur Superintendent of Police this October, accessed by The Indian Express, Sudarshana, 26, who married Vikramaditya on March 8, 2019, in Jaipur, accused her in-laws of making her life “a joke” and alleged that she had been living “in fear”.

Sudarshana alleged that during Covid, Vikramaditya and others stepped out of the house but she was not permitted to go out. Moreover, the MLA allegedly set up a CCTV camera in her room to “monitor” her.

She also alleged that she got to know of his affair with a 38-year-old Chandigarh resident, Amreen. When she confronted him, “he threatened me saying that I can live with him if I want to but he can’t leave Amreen and that he had promised her before marriage that he will keep her as a wife too”.

Sudarshana claimed in her complaint that when she confronted her mother-in-law Pratibha Singh, she was told that the marriage was solemnised upon instructions from a pandit (priest), who had said that if Vikramaditya married Amreen he might die an untimely death, and so, he needed to marry someone else and then take a divorce.

“When (former Himachal Pradesh CM) Virbhadara Singh was unwell, Vikramaditya went to the home of Amreen’s father and gave his word that he will marry Amreen when his father passes away,” Sudarshana claimed, adding that Vikramaditya tormented her and kept pressuring her for divorce.

“But in my family and caste, a girl is married only once, hence I continued to tolerate his behaviour,” she said.

She also claimed that Vikramaditya and Amreen took drugs, which affected his cognitive behaviour. She also alleged that he sought Rs 10 crore in cash if she wanted to continue to live with him.
She said on October 20, 2020, she was assaulted by her in-laws, who kept stridhan (her possessions), and sent her back to Udaipur, where she has been living since.

In April 2021, Vikramaditya, Pratibha and others came to Udaipur and demanded Rs 10 crore dowry, saying that she can live with them only if she doesn’t object to his relationship with Amreen, Sudarshana said.

She claimed that when her father-in-law died on July 8, 2021, she went to her in-laws’ place “as per social traditions”, but had to return within 15 days since they did not want her to live with them. “Till he (Virbhadra) was alive, the accused had no option but to keep me with them” as Virbhadra was against Vikramaditya’s relationship with Amreen and had also threatened to disown him if he married Amreen “since he wanted to maintain the family reputation”.

During the Congress’s Chintan Shivir in Udaipur in May, Sudarshana’s relatives approached Pratibha, who said she would talk to them in July, but in July too, the issue could not be resolved.
In her complaint, Sudarshana also shared a long list of gold and silver items that had been given as stridhan and which are still with her in-laws.

(With inputs from ENS, Shimla)