Order 2

Order Details: Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS
40TH COURT, GIRGAON, MUMBAI.
C.C. No.26/DV/2023
Fiona Anish Poojara ...Applicant
Vs.
Dr. Jayesh Shetye & Ors ...Respondents
ORDER BELOW EXH.NO. 4
1) This is an application for interim relief under section 23 of
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicant prayed for monthly
maintenance, residence order, litigation expenses and renewal of
spouse visa. Read say by respondents. Heard both the sides. Perused
the documents.
2) Scope of present application is very limited. There is no
need to go into detail merits of the case. It is the contention of the
applicant that her marriage was solemnized on 10.08.2021. They are
separated on 22.03.2023. Respondent has caused mental and physical
violence to the applicant after marriage. She was beaten by respondent
on various occasions. Respondent did not gave her support. She was
subjected to cruelty during IVF treatment. Once she met with an
accident. But respondent did not bother about it. After returning to
India, it is very difficult to get any job. Respondent is not ready to
renew her spouse visa. Respondent has not gave any financial support
to her. No one is dependent upon the respondent. Hence she filed
present application. She prayed for monthly maintenance, residence
order, litigation expenses and renewal of spouse visa.
3) Respondent filed his say at Exh.19. He denied all
allegations of the applicant. He submitted that applicant is misusing
provisions of law. She has filed present proceeding to pressurize the
respondent. She is claiming very high amount as alimony. She had also
-- 1 of 5 --
2
filed such proceeding against her previous husband. There is no case to
grant any relief. She has sufficient source of income. Hence he prayed
to reject the application.
4) Considering rival submissions of the parties, following points are
necessary to decide present application:-
SR.
NO.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does applicant prima facie prove that
she is subjected to domestic violence by
the respondents ?
...Yes
2. Whether applicant is entitled to interim
relief ? If Yes, then what reliefs ?
… Partly Yes
maintenance order
3. What Order ? As per final order.
-: R E A S O N S :-
AS TO POINT NO.1 :-
5) Relationship is admitted by both the parties. Both the parties are
residing separately is also an admitted fact. Both parties have made
allegations against each other. Their allegations can be scrutinized at
the hearing of main application. There is no need to consider all that
allegations at interim stage.
6) Interim relief can be granted under section 23 of the Act
when there is prima-facie case of domestic violence. Applicant very
specifically submitted about domestic violence caused to her by the
respondent. She has stated about incidents dated 23.01.2022,
19.03.2023 and incidents taken place during IVF treatment. Applicant
filed affidavit in support of her application. There is domestic incident
report showing domestic violence against the applicant. She has also
filed copies of her complaints given to authority. Prima facie she has
proved domestic violence. Hence I answered point No.1 in affirmative.
-- 2 of 5 --
3
AS TO POINT NO.2 :-
7) There is prima facie disclosure of domestic violence. Hence
applicant is entitled to interim order U/Sec.23 of the Act. The applicant
prayed for monthly maintenance, residence order, litigation expenses
and renewal of spouse visa.
8) The applicant has claimed maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/-per
month. Both parties have filed affidavit of their assets and liabilities. As
per affidavit of applicant, she has expenses of Rs.4,50,000/- per month.
Respondent is not providing her any financial help. She is unemployed.
Respondent No.1 is M.D. He is getting Rs.7 Lacs per month. He has
various properties and investment in Mutual Funds.
9) As per affidavit of respondent, he is earning Rs.4,25,329/- per
month. His expenses are Rs.3,57,596/- per month. He has various
liabilities. The applicant has very good educational qualification. She
was previously working as a Teacher. She has ability to earn money.
Presently she is residing with her father. She is also Director in Pujara
Securities Pvt Ltd.
10) Respondent has relied upon following case laws :-
1. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal (2000 SCC Online MP 580)
2. Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar Vs Aarati and Anr (2018 SCC
Online Mad 13815)
3. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs District Judge Dehradun & Ors (AIR
1997 Supreme Court 3397)
4. Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr (AIR 2021 SC 569)
5. Arpana Vijay Manore Vs. Dr. Vijay Tukaram Manore (2020
SCC Online Bom 3925)
6. Anju and Anr Vs. Rinku Dahiya (MAT. APP.(F.C.) 78/2023
-- 3 of 5 --
4
11) Relying upon that case laws, Advocate for respondent argued that
if applicant is able to earn sufficient income, then she is not entitled to
maintenance. If she has not disclosed her real source of income, then
adverse inference should be drawn against her. If husband is earning in
foreign currency, then it must be considered that his expenses are also
in foreign currency.
12) This is application for interim relief. There is no need to go into
detail merits of the case. It would be proper to rely upon affidavits of
the parties. The respondent is working in UK and earning Rs.4,25,329/-
per month. He made statement that the applicant was working as a
Teacher. But he has not given any details of employment of the
applicant. There is no evidence to show that applicant is earning
income from her directorship. Respondent has capacity to give monthly
maintenance. He cannot avoid his responsibility towards the applicant.
At the same time, it is to be considered that she was previously working
as a Teacher. While granting the interim maintenance amount, it is
necessary to consider earning and expenditure of the parties, their
lifestyle and today’s economical condition. Considering all that facts,
monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- would be the proper monetary
relief in the present case.
13) The applicant has also claimed residence order, litigation
expenses and renewal of spouse visa. At present, the applicant is
residing with her parents. She has not given any reason as to why she
require residence order. Hence that relief cannot be granted.
Application for renewal of spouse visa is already rejected by my Ld
Predecessor. Prayer of litigation expenses will be considered at final
hearing. Hence that reliefs cannot be granted in this application.
-- 4 of 5 --
5
Considering all above aspects, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
i) The application is partly allowed.
ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay the maintenance amount
of Rs.25,000/- p.m. (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) to the
applicant from the date of application till final disposal of the
main application.
iii) Copy of this order be given to both the parties free of cost.
( S. R. Nimse )
Judicial Magistrate, First Class
Dt. 24.09.2025 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai.
ask
-- 5 of 5 --