Interim Order 2

Order Details: Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: - 1 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
ORDER BELOW EXH.07
This is an application for interim maintenance and other
consequential reliefs.
2. Summary of the application is that the marriage of the
applicant and respondent no.1 has been solemnized on 04/03/2021 as
per Muslim Rites. After marriage she joined the respondents. The spouse
has no issue. The respondents ill-treated physically and mentally to the
applicant without any reasonable cause. The applicant was given gold
and silver ornaments. They are in possession of respondents. Cash of
Rs.2 Lakhs was also given. Respondent No.1 had illicit relation with
woman, hence he avoided the applicant. He abused her in filthy
language, assaulted in April-2021. Hence, she was compelled to leave
matrimonial home. Respondent No.1 sent legal notice on 07.05.2021
through advocate stating fictitious incidents. The said notice has been
replied by applicant. He also filed complaint to Sr. P. I., Trombay Police
Station in order to escape from his duties towards applicant. It is also
filed to cause her harassment. He used to raised doubts on her
character. Another complaint was filed by him on 22.05.2021 at Ulwe
Police Station. One more N. C. case was filed by him on 29.05.2021. He
also filed restitution petition at Family Court, Bandra on 04.06.2021. On
03.11.2021, respondent No.1 called her at Ulwe for talk of settlement
after receipt notice from Family Court. At that time, he demanded
divorce and threatened the applicant that she will be falsely implicated
in criminal cases. Hence, she lodged N.C. with Sagari Police Station.
3. Respondent No.1 failed to comply conditions. Hence, the
applicant approached to the Family Court, but he did not appear. Thus,
-- 1 of 7 --
- 2 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
she is residing on mercy of her parents without any monetary assistance
from respondent No.1. He is bound to pay her, but avoided. Therefore,
she appeared in the court through this petition. He is working in BASF,
Chandivali, Andheri, Mumbai. He also has shares in Share Market and
earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He did not disclose his income in
order to avoid the payment of maintenance. The applicant is taking
tutions due to family dispute. The respondents mislead her and
compelled her to reside in separate room. Hence, she borrowed
Rs.20,000/- for security deposit. She has to pay rent of Rs.7,000/- p.m.
She finally prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to pay Rs.50,000/-
p.m. towards maintenance.
3. Respondent No.1 filed Say (Exh.10) and denied all
allegations. However, admitted marital relationship. It is his contention
that he maintained transparency regarding his educational qualification,
character and financial status prior to marriage. Therefore, allegations
in that respect are false. The applicant resided with him not more than
15 days. During the period also she visited her parents’ home on 3-4
occasions. The applicant did not make a single reference in her reply to
notice about allegations of demand of money by respondents. She also
did not make any allegation in N.C. Case. The fact of giving ornaments
to the applicant and are in custody of respondents is false. She has kept
all belongings and ornaments at parental home. The fact of illicit
relationship is also baseless. The applicant resorted manipulating tactics
to fabricate a basis for filing this case. He issued notice to her on
07.05.2021. She replied on 01.06.2021 and admitted that she
voluntarily visited her parents home. The fact of filing false case on
10.05.2021 is denied. He never denied his duty.
-- 2 of 7 --
- 3 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
4. He filed N.C. case at Sagari Police Station for the reason
that the applicant threatened to kill him. She willfully refused to resume
cohabitation with him though he made sincere attempts. He tried all
effort to reconciliate but the applicant never responded. Hence, he filed
petition under Sec.281 of Mohammedan Act. He never put her under
pressure to give consent to the divorce petition nor he threatened her in
that respect for filing complaint against her. Allegations in that respect
are fabricated and false. The N. C. Report filed by her was with
intention to ley the foundation for false case. As the applicant failed to
comply conditions, he again went to the family court on each and every
date. She was not bonafide in the proceeding before that court. He
never avoided in paying expenses to the applicant. The applicant herself
refused to reside with him alongwith his parents. On the contrary, she
was insisted for separate residence. He is not working in BASF nor he is
earning Rs.1 Lakh per month. He left the job in the year 2023 and now
working with Zomato as delivery boy. The applicant is teacher and
earning Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- p.m., she is also taking private tutions
and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. On the contrary, respondent No.1 is
earning just Rs.10,000 to 15,000/- p.m. and has to bear the expenses of
old parents. They having multiple ailments and required medical
treatment. He is living in a rented premises and has to pay Rs.6,550/-
p.m. towards rent. Due to the huge expenditure, he also taken loan of
Rs.1 Lakh. The applicant is not entitled for any relief as claimed by her
as she is earning sufficient income and higher to the respondent No.1.
She did not reside with him. Therefore, she is not entitled for
maintenance. She did not come in the court with clean hands. He finally
prayed that the application be rejected with costs.
-- 3 of 7 --
- 4 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
5. I heard both side, perused the record and considered
submissions. Points for determination and findings thereon, along with
reasons are as under-
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Whether the applicant Prima facie shows
that she met with domestic violence from
respondents?
Yes
2. Weather applicant is entitled for
Protection order as claimed?
Yes
3. Weather applicant is entitled for interim
maintenance as claimed?
Partly Yes
4. What order? As per final order
6. Perused papers. I have gone through the proceeding. It
appears that the marriage of both parties and their relations interse are
not in dispute. It further appears that the applicant and respondent
cohabited but are having dispute between them. The questions to be
considered are whether there is domestic violence with the applicant
and whether she is entitled for the relief claimed.
Point Nos.1 and 2
7. The contention of the applicant is that she faced ill-
treatment caused by respondent and thereby domestic violence took
place. She also made allegations against the respondent in the original
petition along with the allegations of mental and physical harassment.
On the contrary, the respondent party submitted that allegations are
-- 4 of 7 --
- 5 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
false and fabricated. All these allegations and counter allegations
whether proved shall be decided after evidence. After considering
statements of both side, the Court prima facie came to the conclusion
that the applicant faced domestic violence as no woman shall easily
complain against her husband without any cogent reason.
8. In view of rival contentions, it appears that relations of
parties are not cordial. The applicant made various allegations against
respondent. It further appears that both parties filed N.C. Cases against
each other. In view of history of allegations narrated by both parties, it
prima facie appears necessary to issue protection order in favour of the
applicant in view of facts and circumstances seen in the record. In view
of above discussion, the Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the
affirmative.
Point No.3
9. As far as income of both parties is concerned, the applicant
made allegations against respondent No.1 for having income of
Rs.1,00,000/- per month. This fact has been denied by respondent No.1
and stated that he left the said job and now working as Zomato delivery
boy, earning Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- per month. The fact that the
applicant is earning Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- has not been corroborated
by the evidence. However, it is admitted by applicant herself that she is
taking tutions to earn some money for livelihood. This aspect though
considered, cannot exclude the respondent No.1 from his liability to
maintain his wife. Affidavit of Assets and liabilities of both side are in
the record. Considering all these aspects, the court prima facie come to
the conclusion that respondent no.1 has sufficient income to maintain
-- 5 of 7 --
- 6 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
applicant.
10. It is admitted fact that the applicant is the legally wedded
wife of Respondent No.1. Therefore, it is the moral, social and legal
responsibility of the respondent to maintain the applicant. In view of
income source of respondent as discussed in earlier para, the inference
can be drawn that he has capacity to maintain the applicant. The
applicant is earning, however, that fact is not sufficient as discussed
earlier. Though, it is claimed that respondent No.1 is working in BASF,
he himself stated that he left the said job. Moreover, the applicant did
not submit any document affirming that currently respondent No.1 is
working in BASF. Therefore, prima facie it is seen that the respondent
No.1 is working as Zomato Delivery Boy. Considering income of both
parties and requirement of the applicant, so also, in order to satisfy
basic needs of the applicant, it is necessary to grant Rs.5,000/-p.m
towards interim maintenance. In view of above discussion, point no.3 is
answered as partly affirmative and in answer to point no.4, the
following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Application is partly allowed.
2. Respondents are directed under Sec.18 of the PWDV Act not to
cause domestic violence to the applicant till disposal of this
application.
3. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant under Sec.20(1)(d) of
the PWDV Act from the date of this application.
-- 6 of 7 --
- 7 - Case No.153-DV-2024
Neha Vs. Mohd. Niyaz (Exh.07)
4. The copy of this order be given free of cost to both parties
under Sec.24 of the PWDV Act.
Declared in the Court.
(B. C. More)
Date:- 02/05/2026 Judicial Magistrate (FC),
57th Court, Kurla, Mumbai.
-- 7 of 7 --