Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 61 DV 2020 Gyanti Vs Manoj and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-001646-2020
Judgment, Exh.6
Received on – 20.03.2020
Registered on – 21.03.2020
Decided on – 02.02.2023
Duration – 02 Ys. 10 Ms. 12 Ds.
Exh.6
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Komalsing Rajput)
C. C. No.61/DV/2020
Mrs. Gyanti Udaynarayan Vishwakarma,
Age – 60 years, Occ. - Housewife,
R/o. - 102-1-9, Anneshiv Kam Chawl,
Khambadevi Road, M. P. Nagar,
Dhorwada, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017. APPLICANT
Vs.
1. Mr. Manoj Udaynarayan Vishwakarma,
2. Smt. Rekha Manoj Vishwakarma,
Both R/o. - 102-1-9, Anneshiv Kam Chawl,
Khambadevi Road, M. P. Nagar,
Dhorwada, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017. RESPONDENTS
Advocates for the Parties –
For Applicant - Advocate, Premsagar Bind.
For Respondents - Ex parte
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 02nd February, 2023)
Page - 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
C. C. No. 61 DV 2020 Gyanti Vs Manoj and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-001646-2020
Judgment, Exh.6
1. The present application is filed under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, (hereinafter referred as D. V. Act
for the sake of brevity), seeking various reliefs.
2. The brief contents of the application are, as -
The applicant Ms. Gyanti Udaynarayan Vishwakarma, hereinafter
referred as applicant, is mother of Respondent No.1, Mr. Manoj,
hereinafter referred as main respondent. Respondent No.2, Mrs. Rekha, is
wife of main respondent. All of them were residing in the same house. The
applicant's husband died on 18.01.2007. After that also she continued to
reside with both the respondents. Respondents taken away all her
valuables and trying to remove her from matrimonial house. They are
using abusive language against her. Main respondent taken away all
business of the husband of applicant and not maintaining her. She has no
means of income. She became dependent on her kins and compelled to
reside with them. The respondent is having good economic condition.
Therefore, applicant filed present application for protection order,
maintenance, residence, stridhan and compensation.
3. Respondents despite service of notice not appeared. Therefore,
matter was proceeded ex parte against them, vide order of this court dated
15.01.2021.
4. Applicant in support of her case applicant examined herself as
A.W.1, Smt. Gyanti Udaynarayan Vishwakarma, vide her evidence
affidavit, Exh.4. She also relied on certain documents. The respondents
neither cross-examined her nor led any evidence. They also not argued out
the matter. Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant. The submissions are in
tune her pleadings and evidence.
Page - 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
C. C. No. 61 DV 2020 Gyanti Vs Manoj and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-001646-2020
Judgment, Exh.6
5. Considering submissions, pleadings and other facts and
circumstances on record, I recorded my findings on following points for
the reasons discussed below -
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does it prove that the respondent committed
domestic violence against applicants? .....Partly proved only against
Respo. No.1.
2. Does the applicants entitled to the reliefs as
prayed for? ….Partly proved only against
Respo. No.1.
3. What order? …..Appli. is partly allowed.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NOS.1 AND 2 – Domestic violence and reliefs
6. The applicant A.W.1, Smt. Gyanti Udaynarayan Vishwakarma,
vide her evidence affidavit, Exh.4, reproduced the contents of the
application and deposed that, main respondent is her son. Respondent
No.2, Mrs. Rekha, is wife of main respondent. All of them were residing
in the same house. The applicant's husband died on 18.01.2007. After
that also she continued to reside with both the respondents. Respondents
taken away all her valuables and trying to remove her from matrimonial
house. They are using abusive language against her. Main respondent
taken away all business of the husband of applicant and not maintaining
her. She has no means of income. She became dependent on her kins and
compelled to reside with them. The respondent is having good economic
condition. Therefore, she is in need of reliefs.
7. The above evidence is not challenged by the respondents. It
remained intact. There is nothing in it from which it can be said that the
contents of the application and consequent evidence affidavit in support
of it are false. The various incidences of ill-treatment causing domestic
Page - 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
C. C. No. 61 DV 2020 Gyanti Vs Manoj and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-001646-2020
Judgment, Exh.6
violence are almost admitted, the desertion and non-arrangement of
means of livelihood also proved. There are no substantive allegations
constituting domestic violence against Respondent No.2. The facts
pleaded and evidence in respect of the said respondent is not enough to
grant any relief against her. The relief therefore only granted against
main respondent Mr. Manoj. The applicant succeeded in proving that
main respondent Mr. Manoj, caused various acts of domestic violence
against her and therefore I recorded my findings on Point No.1, as partly
proved only against main respondent Pritam.
8. So far as reliefs are concerned applicant claimed protection order,
maintenance, residence, stridhan and compensation, etc. The main
respondent, is doing a business succeeded from his father and earning
good income. The allegations pertaining to violence and stridhan are not
substantiated, therefore, the protection order and reliefs relating to
stridhan, can not be granted. In view of the fact that non-arrangement of
funds the monthly allowance in the form of monitory relief, injunction
not to remove the applicant from the shared household along with
compensation is necessary. Considering the income of respondent, I am
of the opinion that following order will serve the cause of justice, hence
order -
ORDER
A. Application is partly allowed.
B. Respondent No.1, Mr. Manoj Udaynarayan Vishwakarma, is
directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousands
Only) per month, from the date of application till the month of
December, 2022, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month,
from the month of January 2023, to the applicant.
Page - 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
C. C. No. 61 DV 2020 Gyanti Vs Manoj and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-001646-2020
Judgment, Exh.6
C. Respondent No.1, Manoj Udaynarayan Vishwakarma, is directed
to pay the additional amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousands Only)
to applicant towards compensation and expenses.
D. The prayer for other reliefs against main respondent is rejected.
The whole application is rejected against Respondent Nos.2, Mrs. Rekha
Manoj Vishwakarma.
E. Copy of this judgment shall be given free of costs to both the
parties.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 02.02.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
C. C. No. 61 DV 2020 Gyanti Vs Manoj and anr.
CNR No.MHMM18-001646-2020
Judgment, Exh.6
I affirm that the contents of this PDF file judgment are same word for
ward as per original judgment.
Court Name : Komalsing Rajput
Name of Steno : S. R. Parab
Date : 02.02.2023
signed by P.O. on : 02.02.2023
uploaded on : 08.02.2023
Page - 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --