Vikas Gupta vs. Ranjana Agarwal Alias Gupta & Ors.
Background
The petitioner, who has an 86% locomotor disability, married the respondent in 2012; the couple separated within a month and are now divorced (with an appeal pending). He filed a complaint under the RPwD Act against his former wife and her family, alleging they had repeatedly insulted him over his disability, threatened and harassed him, and, more recently, in 2025, visited his workplace and his sister's in-laws' house to defame him. A Special Court set up under the RPwD Act dismissed his complaint, reasoning that all the allegations related to events from 2012 and were vague, stale, and essentially a leftover matrimonial dispute.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court set aside the dismissal, finding the Special Court's approach "perfunctory." It held that the lower court had wrongly treated the entire complaint as relating only to 2012, when the petitioner had also alleged specific, recent incidents, including a visit to his sister's in-laws' house on 05.07.2025 and ongoing harassment at his workplace, which needed to be considered on their own terms under a protective statute like the RPwD Act. The Court noted the proper remedy for a lack of detail was for the Special Court to call for more particulars, not dismiss the complaint outright. The matter was sent back for fresh consideration.
Lesson Learnt
A complaint should not be dismissed wholesale just because part of it concerns old events: a court must separately examine any recent, continuing allegations on their own merits, particularly under laws meant to protect vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities.