Across cultures there exists the trope of the overbearing mother-in-law. In some cultures it’s the woman’s mother who is the interfering villain. In others, it’s the man’s mother that is hostile, the alpha female of the household enforcing the patriarchy.

That latter trope is being tested in a case that is before the Superior Court of Justice, where a mother-in-law has taken the stand after she was accused by her daughter-in-law of assault and uttering threats. Toronto woman Sheela Gupta was the defence’s first witness Monday in a judge-alone trial that began before Justice James Diamond April 9. Her husband Vinod Gupta is accused of uttering threats. Their son Rajinder Gupta is accused of multiple charges of assault, sexual assault and uttering threats. They have all pleaded not guilty.

The name of the woman who brought them to court is under a publication ban. We’re calling her Sakhi.

Sakhi has given harrowing testimony of being bitten, slapped, punched and raped by her husband in the course of their three-month marriage in 2015. Of her in-laws, she said Sheela Gupta had slapped her on one occasion and had suggested to her son while watching a TV show that “these types of daughters-in-law (gesturing to Sakhi) should be killed.” Vinod Gupta had angrily threatened to kill her, her parents, her brother and his family and “hang them upside down,” Sakhi alleged.

The trial had gone on a break after Sakhi’s cross-examination finished April 27. When it resumed May 28, Lakhwinder Sandhu, the lawyer defending the Gupta parents, appeared to be preparing the defence that the Guptas were the real victims.

On May 31, when he was cross-examining Sakhi’s father, Sandhu said, “If I suggest you intended to replace the Guptas in their townhouse would you agree?”

“I have two daughters,” the man said. “No parent wants to stay in their daughter’s house.”

This week, Sheela testified that towards the end of the marriage, Sakhi had begun telling her that she wanted Sheela and Vinod to move out to India so her parents (who live in another Canadian city) could move in to the townhouse here.

“You’d agree with me that you all three own the townhouse?” Crown attorney Kelly Simpson asked her. She did. “And it’s not part of tradition for Indian parents to live with their daughter?” Yes, she said. She also agreed when Simpson said that Sakhi’s parents have another daughter in the city where they live who has a restaurant where members of the family worked.

Sakhi’s father also wanted Sheela and Vinod gone so they could move in, Sheela testified. “My son said, ‘you (can) live here but where will I send my mum and dad,’” she said.

The question before the Crown is how do you prove incidents that happen in the privacy of a home?

Like Sakhi, Sheela cuts a sympathetic figure. When her testimony began Monday, she said she worked six days a week on a farm, left before 5 a.m. to work in the fields and returned home only around 8:30 p.m. She has blood-sugar problems and anxiety attacks, her counsel told court.

Sandhu told me Wednesday that the Guptas are financially ruined by the trial.

Outside of sexual assault allegations, Sakhi has alleged she did not have access to the money she earned, and that her clothing and physical movements were tightly controlled by the family.

Sheela repeatedly called Sakhi’s allegations fabrications and drew an image of a happy family. While she agreed tradition dictated Sakhi help out in the house, she said they didn’t make Sakhi work.

According to Sheela, who like the other witnesses is testifying in Punjabi, Sakhi was like a daughter to her and she took her to the doctor when she was sick and didn’t place any restrictions on her. She said neither she nor her husband ever lost their temper with her.

She said on days off her son Rajinder would take Sakhi out and they would eat and shop for new clothes for her. Although they themselves worked long hours to meet expenses (court heard Sheela wakes up at 2:45 a.m. to cook), she said she and her husband did not resent all this spending.

If Sakhi was frequently sick — and Sheela did not agree with the Crown assertion of eight visits to the doctor or that it was severe even though Sakhi was sent to emergency at one point — it was because she ate out a lot.

She agreed that Sakhi’s mother told her when the families met for the first time that Sakhi had been previously married and that she was — the word she used was “kori” — untouched. But she said it was not important to her whether she was a virgin.

Neither she nor her husband were angry that their daughter-in-law was trying to throw them out of the house, she said. “We had in our mind that we’re living here and they (Sakhi’s parents) can also live with us.”

“And you had a good relationship with your daughter-in-law, you never complained to anybody about her, you let her spend money the way she wanted,” said Simpson. “So I guess when your daughter-in-law said to you you’ll have to go to India and my mum and dad want to move in, you must have asked her why she wanted that.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Sheela said she didn’t.

“You have opened your home to (Sakhi’s) parents, they have come and stayed with you and now, according to you, they want you to leave and take over,” said Simpson. “I’m going to suggest your husband was very angry.”

No, Sheela said. He wasn’t. And he didn’t bang his fists and threaten to kill them either, Sheela said. “It was all a lie.”