76-year-old woman can’t enter 103-year-old mom’s home: Court

Sumitra Sethi, 103, at the Metropolitan Magistrate court in Fort, on July 1. Pic/Satej Shinde

In a domestic violence case involving a 103-year-old woman, her 85-year-old son and 76-year-old daughter, a city court has told the mother and son to pay Rs 20,000 every month to the daughter. The court didn't allow the daughter's request to enter the centenarian's sea-facing home in Marine Drive.

The septuagenarian, Urvashi Sethi-Kapoor, had alleged that she and her 55-year-old daughter were denied entry to her mother's home at Chateau Marine on June 13 after she was discharged from the hospital after 28 days of treatment. She alleged they were made to wait for four hours even after police intervention. Namrata Kapoor, on behalf of her mother Urvashi, had then filed a domestic violence case against her grandmother Sumitra Sethi, uncle Viney Sethi and his wife Nabla Sethi.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, NU Parma heard the matter. While advocate Varsha Bhogle represented the petitioner, advocate Himaanshu Maratkar appeared for the other side. The court observed from medical reports that Urvashi is mentally ill and gets uncontrolled at times. The court also observed that only the Sethis received Rs 17.5 lakh for the sale of a flat.

Also Read: 103-year-old woman, son, booked for chucking out daughter from Marine Drive home

In its interim orders, the magistrate underlined that Urvashi and her family do not have a harmonious relationship with her mother. While it refused to grant Urvashi and Namrata entry to Sumitra's home, it directed the Sethi family to pay Rs 20,000 every month towards the rent. Advocate Bhogle noted that the accused sold a flat at Monalisa Building at Breach Candy belonging to Urvashi, but the proceeds were not given to her. "The flat at Monalisa building, unlike the flat at Chateau Marine, was an ownership flat, and was in the name of Urvashi Harnath Kapoor," said the advocate. Advocate Himaanshu Maratkar said the court restored the dignity of 103-year-old Sumitra.

He said, "The complainant was trying to mislead the court by claiming that she had no place to take care of her ailing mother. However, the complainant is the owner of a high-value residential apartment in south Mumbai… But unfortunately, she does not desire to care for her own mother. The complainant spends money on fancy cars and a luxurious lifestyle."