Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Order
Pdf Text: (1) CC No.233/DV/2022
MHMM170097612022
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS,
67TH COURT, BORIVALI, MUMBAI
C.C.NO.233/DV/2022
1. Mrs. Charmi Ashwin Prajapati
@ Charmi Ramesh Patani. … Applicant
V/s.
Mr. Ashwin Babubhai Prajapati and others … Respondents
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION
(Passed on 06.01.2025)
1. Heard both the sides at length. Perused the documents filed
on record. Applicant herein has filed application under section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘DV Act’)
seeking reliefs under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 for monitory
compensation & educational and medical expenses of son Parv. By filing
main petition she has claimed all these reliefs as an interim relief vide
present interim application.
2. It is the case of the applicant that she and respondent got
married on 03/03/2017 as per Hindu Vedic rites & rituals at Mumbai.
Thereafter, she went to cohabit with the respondent at her matrimonial
home at Dindoshi. All the marriage and engagement expenses were born
by her parents. Respondent no.1 was in a habit of consuming alcohol,
smoking, gambling and playing cards on daily basis. It was also known to
the applicant prior to marriage. Applicant asked respondent no.1 to quit
-- 1 of 5 --
(2) CC No.233/DV/2022
his habit but instead of listening to the applicant respondent no.1 engaged
in an argument with the applicant and also threatened her of dire
consequences. All the respondents started harassing and torturing the
applicant on petty issue. Thereafter, from the wedlock on 30/09/2019 she
had given birth to child Parv and expenses of the delivery were born by
her parents. Even respondent was caught with the girl in a compromising
situation. Applicant has narrated the numerous incidents of physical,
verbal, emotional and economical abuses committed by the respondents in
her main petition. As respondents unlawful demands have not been meted
out by applicant or her parents, respondent has started physically and
mentally harassing more and more day by day. The respondents neglected
their moral duties to maintain the applicant and her son/child. Even
school expenses of the son were born by the applicant.
3. Applicant stated that respondent is doing business and earns
Rs. 50,000/- p.m. At present she is residing with her son alongwith
respondent. She is not getting sufficient income to maintain herself and
her son. Applicant has to bear the school fees, every need of son.
Respondent has not bothered to pay any expenses of their child. Applicant
has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- per month as interim maintenance for herself
and her child/son.
4. On the other hand respondent appeared and filed his reply.
He has denied all the allegations made by the applicant. According to him
applicant is forcibly staying and giving troubles to respondent. She were
pressurizing the respondents to dispose off the bungalow and gave her
shares. Further they have contended that they have not committed any
kind of domestic violence to the applicant. Accordingly, respondents
requested to reject the interim relief claimed by the applicant.
-- 2 of 5 --
(3) CC No.233/DV/2022
5. In view of aforesaid background, following points arise for my
consideration on which I have recorded my findings thereon for the
reasons given below them :-
Sr.
No
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does the applicant prima-facie prove the
domestic violence against her by the
respondents ?
In the affirmative.
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim
reliefs as prayed against the respondents ?
Partly affirmative.
3. What order ? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 AND 2 :-
6. It is needless to say that provisions of DV Act are primarily
based upon to protect the interest of women from the domestic violence
by her own family members or the members of her matrimonial home.
The Act itself provides enough space to the court to exercise discretion on
the basis of reasonable proofs of the domestic violence. Even court has
been given power to pass any appropriate relief as deem fit in appropriate
case. At the same time duty also casted upon the court to allow the relief
fairly and reasonably to the applicant and her dependents with the
standard of living to which they have accustomed by having regard to
financially needs and resources of the parties.
7. In the case in hand both parties have filed their affidavit of
income declaring their assets and liability. The applicant has filed the copy
of police complaint filed against the respondents. Admittedly at present
-- 3 of 5 --
(4) CC No.233/DV/2022
applicant and respondent no.1 are living /residing separately. They do
have a son namely Parv. At this juncture it is difficult to arrive at the
findings/ conclusion that respondents are guilty to the act of domestic
violence. However, prima facie it appears that, marriage between the
applicant and respondent no.1 could not work out. Relationship between
them has been strained, so that it seems no likelihood of reunion. At this
juncture, it cannot be decided whoever is at fault for separation and living
married life. The findings are subjected evidence upon trial. Currently
child of them in the custody of applicant i.e. applicant has to bear all
school expenses of son.
8. Circumstances here prima facie prove the domestic violence
taken place against the applicant due to which she is residing separately
alongwith her child. In so far as the claim of the applicant is concerned,
reliefs sought by the applicant are exaggerated, not reasonable and fair in
view of financial income/gain of respondent no.1. Therefore, respondent
no.1 is duty bound to maintained the applicant. As applicant is housewife
and she could not earn sufficient income to maintain herself. However,
considering standard of living of applicant and her son to which they have
accustomed and to make up the expenses the monthly maintenance of Rs.
8,000/- p.m. to the applicant and Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to son Parv would meet
ends of justice to both sides. Hence, I answer point No.1 in affirmative
and point no.2 in part affirmative. Thus, in result I proceed to pass the
following order :-
AS TO POINT NO. 3:-
9. From the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following
order :-
-- 4 of 5 --
(5) CC No.233/DV/2022
O R D E R
1. Application is partly allowed.
2. Respondent no.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/-
(Rs. Eight Thousand Only) per month to the applicant and
an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) per
month to son viz. Parv as an interim maintenance from the
date of filing this application, till disposal of the main
application.
3. Copy of this order be given to both parties, concerned Police
Station and Protection Officer free of cost.
4. (Order dictated and pronounced in Open Court).
Mumbai, ( A. D. GHUGE )
Dated : 06.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
ppk 67th Court, Borivali, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 06.01.2025
Typed on : 06.01.2025
Signed on : 06.01.2025
-- 5 of 5 --