Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: 1
C.C.NO. 25/DV/2018
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION EXH.3
IN C.C.NO. 25/DV/2018
Read the application and say given thereon. I have heard
Ld. Advocate for both side at considerable length. Perused documents
on record.
2. Following points arise for my determination and my
findings against each of them for the reason arisen.
Sr.
No
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether petitioner proves that she is
subjected to domestic violence at the hands
of respondent?
Decided on merit.
2. Whether petitioner is unable to maintain
herself and her son ?
In the negative
3. Whether respondent has sufficient means of
income?
Does not survive
4. What order ? As per final order
REASONS
As to Point nos. (i) to (iii):
3. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that respondent no.1
is husband and respondent no.2 is motherinlaw of petitioner. Since
inception, respondents have time to time caused domestic violence on
petitioner in the nature of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and
economical violence. Respondent no.1 has doubted chastity of
petitioner, therefore, she was compelled to go outside the home
alongwith her minor son in 2016. Respondent no.1 has denied relation
with his son. Respondent no.1 is doing business of Caterers, painting
work and getting Rs.50,000/ per month, whereas petitioner is not
doing any work and she has no source of income. Respondent no.2 is
-- 1 of 3 --
2
C.C.NO. 25/DV/2018
nurse by profession, therefore, respondent no.1 has no responsibility,
then also he refused to maintain petitioner and her son, which gave
cause of action for petitioner to file interim application of maintenance.
4. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for respondents strongly
objected allegations and arguments advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. He further submitted that respondent no.2 has sold out room
situated at Pyari Nagar and purchased room no. 521 in the name of
petitioner and respondent no.1. They started residing in the said
premises, but petitioner thrown out respondents and her daughter
Manisha in 2016. Since 2016 till this date, petitioner is getting
Rs.30,000/ per month licence fees from the tenant. Respondents sent
notice to petitioner for vacating disputed premises, therefore, she filed
this false case without there being any kind of domestic violence.
Respondents are ready to take back petitioner, but she is refusing to
cohabit with them. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner has
independent source of income of rent therefore, she is not entitled for
maintenance, hence, prayed for dismissal of this application.
5. In the context of rival submission and documents placed
on record, it reveals that admittedly, petitioner and respondents are
residing separately from the year 2016, therefore, there is no domestic
relationship between the parties from the year 2016. Admittedly,
petitioner is in possession of disputed premises of 521. The
respondents have filed N.C. reports, application restraining transfer of
disputed premises in the name of petitioner. Admittedly, this petition
has been filed after initiation of proceeding of eviction against
petitioner by the respondents. Admittedly, this petition has been filed
-- 2 of 3 --
3
C.C.NO. 25/DV/2018
after lapse of two years from separation and the petitioner has not given
any cogent and convincing reason for filing of the petition at belated
stage, which creates doubt about causing domestic violence on her by
the respondents.
6. Apart from this, petitioner has given application on
14/2/2011 to Women Cell at Chembur, Mumbai wherein she
specifically mentioned that eqykaP;k Qh iklwu] diMkyRrk] ?kj[kpZ laiw.kZ
ikyuiks”k.k eh ekb;k ;s.kk&;k ?kjHkkM;krwu pkyfors- l/;k eh ekxhy es 2016
iklwu eh ekb;k irh o lklwiklwu foHkDr jkgkr vkgs- This admission clearly
goes to show that since 2016, parties are residing separately and
petitioner has independent source of income to maintain herself and her
son, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Consequently, I
record my findings as to point no.2 in the negative.
7. Since petitioner has source of income to maintain herself
and her son, therefore, no question would arise for maintenance of
petitioner by the respondents. In the result, point no.3 does not
survive. Accordingly, I answered Point no.3.
8. In the light of abovesaid discussion, interim application is
not maintainable, therefore I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
The interim application is rejected.
No order as to costs.
sd/
( S. K. Mungilwar )
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date :08/05/2019 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
ASD.
-- 3 of 3 --