Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
09TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
Mrs.Shamani Aditya Naik @
Miss. Shamani Sameer Tendulkar & Anr. …... Applicant
Vs.
Mr.Aditya Anant Naik & Anr. …... Respondents.
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION (EXH.02 )
This application is filed under Section 23 of The Protection
of Woman from The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short 'Act') for
grant of interim reliefs as prayed in the prayer clause.
The case of applicant in brief is as under:
2. The Applicant No.1 married with the respondent No.1 on
10/03/2017 as per Hindu Vedic Rites. Out of the wedlock son by
name Vajra is born on 05th May 2019. Passport and Aadhar Card of son
has been rejected due to nonregistration of the marriage. Inspite of
completing all the formalities respondent No.1 did not cooperate for
registration of marriage caused humiliation and emotional abuse to
applicant. The respondent No.1 filed false complaint against the
applicant No.1 alleging theft of gold and silver ornaments of
respondent No.1 by making publicity in relatives. This has caused
mental abuse to the applicant No.1. The respondent No.1 not taken
care and visited hospital when applicant No.1 was pregnant. After
birth of son he was in NICU, the respondent No.1 left by leaving four
days old child without taking any care. The respondent No.1 has not
given single rupee towards maintenance and medicine. The
..2/
-- 1 of 23 --
2 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
respondents are not returning the ornaments of applicant No.1 which is
her Stridhan. Applicant No.1 was treated with cruelty. Applicant No.1
was made to eat unhealthy food cooked by father of respondent No.1.
by opening quarrels. On 18/11/2018 the respondent No.1 was resistant
and negligent in taking the applicant No.1 to hospital as he has severe
abdominal pain during pregnancy. In the public places the respondent
No.1 and his father use to scream and shout at the applicant No.1. In
front of their relatives use to behave in cruel and uncultured manner.
This has caused the emotional abuse as well as mental harm to the
applicant No.1. The respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.1
without giving intimation of their arrival opened heavy quarrel at the
house of parents of applicant No.1 on multiple occasion. The
respondent No.1 never played with son Vajra or never inquired about
his progress. Death of father of respondent No.1 was not informed to
the applicant No.1 and her parents and were not called in the last
rituals. All these acts caused economical, mental and physical abuse to
the applicant No.1.
3. Applicant No.1 has studied Architecture. Father of
applicant No.1 is an advocate and lecturer in law college. Mother was
working with bank since 2001. Respondent No.1 is the only son of this
parents. The Respondent No.2 is working in Bank of Baroda on post of
clerk. The Respondent No.1 is Bachelor of Engineering having high
qualification. The respondent No.1 was working with Salese Force
(India) as Sales Executive. Annual income of the respondent No.1 was
Rs. 50,00,000/ which comes to Rs.4,10,000/ per month. From linked
account of respondent No.1 it reveals that the respondent No.1 is
..3/
-- 2 of 23 --
3 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
working with M/s.Coursera(India) having parent company is U.S.. It
can be informed that due to hike in pay the respondent No.1 changed
his company and might be getting Rs.5,00,000/ per month from Rs.
4,10,000/ per month.
4. The respondent No.1 had plans to obtain permanent
resident status of Canada and to permanently shift at Canada. Father of
respondent No.1 detected with liver cancer due to which respondent
No.1 could not succeeded to shift to Canada or USA. Even due to
present condition the respondent No.1 may ran away to countries like
U.S.A or Canada which may cause loss and damage to the applicant.
Passport of respondent No.1 needs to be impounded.
5. The applicant No.1 and respondents No.1 met each other in
February 2015 for first time through Bharat Matrimony website. The
father of respondent No.1 after several days informed the father of
applicant No.1 that applicant No.1 is a plump girl in comparison might
have issues in conceiving child and rejected the proposal. Parents of
applicant No.1 were hurt at that time. The respondent No.1 was with
the applicant No.1 never said anything about her weight. In October
2017 the respondent No.1 met with applicant No.1 to reconsider the
proposal. The parents of applicant were reluctant due to previous
rejection. By forgetting previous rejection parents of applicant
considered educational qualification and background, agreed for the
marriage. The marriage was fixed in November 2019. On 25/12/2016
there was marriage engagement of applicant No.1 and respondent No.1
at Dadar. On one occasion without any intimation, respondent No.1
..4/
-- 3 of 23 --
4 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
and his father came to the office of father of applicant No.1. They
claimed due to home loan, are in financial crisis and will not be able to
spend much in marriage. Father of applicant No.1 spend as much as
possible. Expenses for engagement were borne by father of applicant
No.1 to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/. The marriage took place on 10 th
March 2017. On the occasion of birthday of respondent No.1 he
shouted on applicant in front of the hotel as there was no place to keep
the cake brought by the applicant No.1. In marriage ceremony the
parents of applicant No.1 spent Rs.34,00,000/. Ornaments worth
Rs.2,062,697.21 were given to applicant by her parents. The ornaments
and articles worth Rs.2,93,918/ were given to respondent No.1 and his
parents. Ornaments worth Rs.8,95,489/ are with the applicant No.1
and of Rs.11,67,004.21 are with the respondents. In addition to these
clothes, articles other things are given by the parents of applicant in the
marriage. After marriage applicant went to reside at her matrimonial
house at Lodha Aurum CHSL, Kanjur Marg. ( for short 'shared
household') jointly with parents of respondent No.1. After marriage,
first years festival and traditional festivals were celebrated by parents
of applicant No.1 by giving gift articles, money to buy clothes and
ornaments. Within few days after marriage the respondent No.1 and
his father asked to deliver all the ornaments of applicant No.1 to keep
in the locker. The keys of locker was always with the father of
respondent No.1. Only on occasion ornaments were given and taken
back by the respondent to keep in locker of father of the respondent
No.1.
6. The respondent No.1 got job in Microsoft company on a
..5/
-- 4 of 23 --
5 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
yearly package. After marriage he joined the services. Applicant No.1
was working as freelancer and in a private practice as an architect. As
the respondent No.1 told the applicant No.1 that as he is earning
handsomely and she need not have to worry. Inspite of earning
handsomely the applicant No.1 herself took care of her home expenses
and was also spending for household utilities. The respondent No.1
never supported the applicant No.1 financially after marriage. In the
month of April when applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 went for
honeymoon at Italy. Respondent No.1 shouted on applicant No.1 on so
many occasions. The respondent No.1 at times would leave the
applicant No.1 and was going to see alone though on a honeymoon
trip. The applicant has embarrassed, suffered and cried during this
period. In July 2017 the applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 went to
U.S.A.. The respondent No.1 wanted to sight seeing in one day forced
the applicant No.1 to accompany him without taking any lunch or any
food except breakfast. The applicant No.1 requested the respondent
No.1 that she wants to eat in the evening. The respondent No.1 got
angry and left her all alone. The applicant No.1 manage to come to the
hotel room with great difficulties. Due to behaviour of the respondent
No.1 he was asked to resign from the job from the Microsoft Company
in the month of June 2017. The behaviour and the relationship of the
respondent No.1 with his parent was also not normal. The respondent
No.1 was reluctant to take back his father when he was struck in a flood
at Kurla.
7. The father of respondent No.1 was detected with cancer in
the month of August 2018. It was the wish of the father of respondent
..6/
-- 5 of 23 --
6 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
No.1 to have a grandson. Though applicant No.1 and respondent No.1
decided not to have a child immediately after marriage only to fulfill
last Will of the father of the respondent No.1 applicant No.1 has agreed
to have a child. In August 2018 applicant No.1 conceived and thought
that this will change atmosphere in the house. To the surprise of
applicant No.1 she was asked whether she wants child or not. No
proper care was taken by the respondent No.1 during this period.
During pregnancy period the applicant No.1 was not provided with a
nutritious food. If applicant No.1 wants to eat nutritious food she
herself has to cook and eat.
8. In November 2018 at 10.30 a.m. when applicant had
severe abdominal pain respondent No.1 instead of taking care made the
applicant herself to call for gynecologist. Even in the hospital
respondent No.1 started fight with the applicant No.1 at 2.00 a.m.. In
December 2018 applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 and their parents
went for weekend trip at Lavasa. Respondent No.1 ruthlessly
continuous to scream and fight with applicant No.1. In December 2018
the parents of applicant were upset with the behaviour of the
respondent No.1. On insistence of the respondent No.1 applicant No.1
was constrained to leave shared household on 26th December 2018.
The applicant No.1 left the house with just few clothes and essentials
only. The respondent extended one weeks trip to U.S.A. though
knowing that his father was having cancer and his wife was pregnant.
During pregnancy applicant NO.1 had signed up lecture series. The
respondent No.1 was reluctant to attend these lecture series. The father
of respondent No.1 shouted and fired the applicant No.1 when she was
..7/
-- 6 of 23 --
7 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
attending dance performance programme of her mother at auditorium.
Though mother of applicant No.1 called father of respondent No.1 for
such behaviour they were unapologetic and started screaming again.
The applicant No.1 block the calls of the respondent No.1 and his
father. On three to four occasion when applicant No.1 and respondent
No.1 used to meet in a public park the respondent No.1 used to raise his
voice and humiliating her in public park.
9. On 04th May 2019 applicant No.1 was admitted at Raheja
Hospital at 6.00 a.m.. During this period the respondent No.1 and his
father never taken proper care of the applicant No.1 by giving her
proper attention. On 05th May 2019 cesarean surgery was planned and
baby was born at 2.28 p.m. on that day. Due to the birth of baby
applicant No.1 hopeful for a difference in her life. During
hospitalization the respondent No.1 and his father never stayed to look
after the applicant. On 4th day due to Jaundice baby was kept in NICU.
During this period also there was unprecedented and abnormal
behaviour was given to the applicant No.1. The respondent No.1 and
his parents were visiting the hospital as a visitors. The applicant No.1
wanted to stay for three months after delivery for growth and
development of child and to come out of postpartum depression. The
respondent No.1 and his parents insisted that applicant No.1 should
come home on 40th day of delivery. About reimbursement of the
medical bills abuses were given by the respondent No.1. On 31st May
2019 respondent No.1 and his father came to the house of applicant
No.1's father unannounced and started fighting with each other. It was
insistence of the respondent No.1 and his parents that applicant No.1
should come within 40 days of her delivery. There was scolding, high
..8/
-- 7 of 23 --
8 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
voices, neighbours were pipping as respondent No.1 and his father
shouted on top of their voice.
10. The applicant No.1 has given account of the care and acts
done by her towards her motherinlaw when she was asked by the
father of respondent No.1. There were two meetings on 19th June and
23rd June 2019. Respondent No.1 thereafter came to reside at the
house of father of applicant No.1 from 25th June to 27th June 2019. Hall
was booked for naming ceremony of son. The naming ceremony was
conducted in a house as the respondent No.1 said that he and his
relatives will not attend the ceremony. The baby was named as Vajra.
11. Father of respondent No.1 suggested HomHavan and
Shanti due to the Dosh in the Horoscope of son Vajra. The applicant
No.1 was shocked as her innocent son was being blamed for the
situation existed about relations even prior to his birth. On 20th July
2019 after attending party on suggestion of applicant No.1 trip to
Ratnagiri was planned. The respondent No.1 kept harassing the
applicant No.1 with thoughtful and quarrelsome messages throughout
the entire trip. The father of applicant No.1 had gone into severe
depression after the incidence of 31st May 2019.
12. On 07th October 2019 the applicant No.1 and respondent
No.1 met at the coffee shop at Dadar. The applicant No.1 said that
respondent No.1 should change is behaviour by not raising his voice, he
should give Rs.1 Lakh every month for expenditure and for investing
money for son's future. It was also suggested by applicant No.1 that
..9/
-- 8 of 23 --
9 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
they should have a nuclear family of them only. The respondent No.1
said that he is not earning and was not ready to act as suggested by
the applicant No.1. On 08th October 2019 on the auspicious day of
Dasara, respondent No.1 ,his parents, maternal uncle and aunt came at
the house of the father of applicant No.1 without any intimation in the
evening and started narrating the false accusations and behaviour of
applicant No.1. Respondent No.1 asked the father of applicant No.1 to
send applicant No.1 to shared household. After one week to get the
ornaments back. With apprehension applicant No.1 on 15th October
2019 as per respondent's intimation applicant No.1 went to shared
household alongwith maid and Junior Advocate. There was no one at
the home, unsuccessful attempts were made to call the respondent No.1
and his father. The applicant No.1 could not collect jewellery as the key
of locker in the shared household was not with her. Applicant No.1
collected imitation jewellery, silver idol, two suitcases and some clothes
and returned home after waiting for the respondents.
13. On 16th October 2019 applicant No.1 received call from
Kanjurmarg Police Station in the evening that respondent No.1 and his
father had been to police station for lodging complaint against her.
False complaint about theft of ornaments and other articles was filed by
the respondent No.1 in the matrimonial name of the applicant No.1.
Legal notice was sent to the respondent that the applicant No.1 and her
family members should not contact or meet without her consent due to
past incidence. This notice was replied by letter dated 06/11/2019 by
advocate of respondent No.1.
..10/
-- 9 of 23 --
10 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
14. The applicant No.1 was always ready to meet the father of
the respondent No.1 when she was asked and called by the respondent
No.1. On 29th January 2020 respondent No.1 had taken special
permission to let go Vajra in the ICU. All of them met father of
respondent No.1. On 03rd February 2020 late night on checking
whatsapp status of the cousin of respondent No.1 applicant No.1 came
to know that father of respondent No.1 was no more. The behaviour
of the respondent No.1 towards the applicant is like desertion. The
applicant No.1 and her son cannot survive on the expenses borne by the
father of the applicant No.1. The respondent No.1 is not providing any
help to the applicant No.1 and son Vajra. The applicant No.1 is not
earning and she has no source of income at present.
15. The applicant No.1 is entitled to receive monthly
maintenance of Rs.1,26,000/ for herself and Rs. 59,000/ towards
maintenance of minor son Vajra. The respondent No.1 has monthly
income of Rs.6,20,000/ per month. The applicant No.1 is entitled to
same standard of living when she was getting before marriage and
when she was living at the shared household with respondent No.1. On
the basis of all these allegations applicant made prayer in Para 98 from
clause (a) to (t).
16. The respondent opposed the application by filing say below
Exh.07. The respondent opposed the application by denying all the
allegations levelled against them. It is the contention of the respondents
that no domestic violence has taken place against the applicant No.1.
Applicant No.1 has stolen the ornaments from their house of which
complaint was filed before the Police Station, Kanjurmarg. The
..11/
-- 10 of 23 --
11 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
applicant No.1 is withholding the custody of son Vajra without any
reasonable excuse. The applicant No.1 has not allowed the respondent
No.1 and his father to meet son Vajra. The applicant No.1 left the house
on 26th December 2018 before the birth of son Vajra, thereafter never
came to the house of the respondent. Respondents made attempt to
take back the applicant No.1 and son Vajra at their house. The father
of respondent No.1 was hospitalized and was in ICU, his only wish was
to see son Vajra, however the applicant No.1 never came to visit the
hospital. The applicant No.1 is a architect and she can earn handsome
through her profession of architect. The amount of maintenance
claimed from the respondent is excessive. The application is filed
belatedly and is time barred. The ornaments which the applicant No.1
is claiming as a Stridhan has already taken away by the applicant No.1
with her. The respondent No.1 never objected for getting the marriage
registered, it is the applicant No.1 who was not willing to get the
marriage registered from the registrar. From the allegations made in
the application it clearly reveals that the applicant No.1 has committed
theft of ornaments from the house of respondent No.1 behind his back.
Application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
17. Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant and respondent.
Perused the record and written notes of arguments.
18. Following points arose for determination. Findings are
recorded against each of them for reasons to follow:
Sr.
No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the application prima facie
..12/
-- 11 of 23 --
12 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
discloses that domestic violence is caused
by the respondent to the applicant No.1? In the affirmative
2. Whether the applicant No.1 is entitled for
protection order prohibiting respondents
from committing act of domestic violence
and from committing act of violence
towards applicant No.1 and her family
members who assist and support her ?
In the negative
3. Whether the applicant No.1 and son Vajra
are entitled to monthly interim
maintenance of Rs.1,26,000/ and
Rs.59,000/ respectively from 05 th May
2019 till the date of application ?
Yes. Rs.40,000/ per
month to applicant
No.1 and Rs.25,000/
per month to applicant
No.2 from the date of
application.
4. Whether the applicant No.1 is entitled to
receive her articles and Stridhan as
claimed?
In the negative
5. Whether respondent No.1 can be directed
to deposit his passport or impounding of
his passport? In the negative
6. Whether direction can be given to
respondent No.1 to sign, execute all
necessary documents and remain present
before authorities for registration of
marriage, transfer of record in name of
Mrs. Shamani Aditya Naik and son Vajra?
In the negative
7. Whether direction can be given to
respondent No.1 to produce statement of
bank accounts , loan accounts and credit
and debit card statements?
In the negative
8. Whether direction can be given to
respondent No.1 or his employer to In the negative
..13/
-- 12 of 23 --
13 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
produce his salary certificate?
9. Whether the applicants are entitled for
injunction restraining the respondents
from disposing of or creating third party
interest in the shared household?
In the negative
10. What order? As per Final order.
R E A S O N S
As to Point No.1:
19. It is provided under Section 23 of the Act that if the
Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses the
respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence
Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper. It
is clear from the provision contemplated under section 23 of the Act
that application prima facie should disclose act of domestic violence by
the respondent. The satisfaction of the Magistrate has to be on just and
reasonable grounds. The definition of domestic violence is provided
under Section 3 of the Act. The ingredients of Domestic Violence Act
are
“ Any Act, omission or commission or conduct which constitutes
domestic violence are
(1) It harms or injures or endangers the health,
safety, life, limp or wellbeing, whether mental or
physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so
and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse,
verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.
(2) It harassed, harms, injures or endangers the
aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any
other person related to her to meet any unlawful
..14/
-- 13 of 23 --
14 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
demand for any dowry or other property or valuable
security.
(3) It the effect of threatening the aggrieved
person or any person related to her by any conduct
mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b).
(4) It otherwise injures or causes harm, whether
physical or mental to the aggrieved person.
3. Expression “Economic abuse” Expression “ Economic abuse”
includes
(1) Deprivation of all or any economic or financial
resources.
(2) Disposal of household effects.
(3) Prohibition or restriction to continued access to
resources or facilities.
20. In light of the above provision the applicant No.1 has
narrated the incidence from first meeting till filing of the petition. The
incidences of noncooperation for registration of marriage, incidence
has happened when they went for trip at Italy, U.S.A., Lonavala and
Ratnagiri. The incidences how the applicant was treated at her
matrimonial house alleging that she was not provided with healthy
food. The respondent No.1 avoided and failed to pay the bills of
hospital. The respondents denied the adverse allegations and contended
the allegations are false. In reply no reason is given by the respondent
why the applicant is making these allegations or what was the reason
for the applicant to allege these incidences before the Court. These
allegations if, considered makes out case of domestic violence as
provided in Section 3, Explanation I(iii) of the Act.
..15/
-- 14 of 23 --
15 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
21. As argued by the Ld. Advocate for respondent that this
Court has passed interim order on 05/02/2021 directing the respondent
to deposit the amount. Though, this order is challenged and pending
before the Hon'ble Sessions Court the respondent No.1 failed to make
submission that he is ready to assist the respondents by providing
financial help. Despite of passing of the interim order the respondent
No.1 failed to discharge his obligation by providing any economical and
emotional assistance to the respondents. Admittedly, applicant No.1
and respondent No.1 are husband and wife. The respondent No.2 is
born out of the wedlock of respondent No.1 and applicant No.1. The
obligation to provide financial assistance and essential requirements to
the applicant is on the respondent No.1. In case, if this obligation is
breached or neglected it will amount to deprivation of economic and
financial resources by the respondents.
22. In the definition of domestic violence economic abuse
expressed in explanation (iv)(a)(b) and (c). Irrespective of the order of
the Court dated 05/02/2021 the respondent has not shown any
willingness or acted in a manner to provide financial help to the
respondents. The Act as well as omission of the respondent No.1
amounts to domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act.
23. The respondent has raised ground that already order
dated05/02/2021 is passed by this Court under Section 23 of the Act.
This subsequent application for interim relief is not maintainable. It is
a matter of record that interim order is passed by the Court directing
..16/
-- 15 of 23 --
16 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
the respondent No.1 to deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/ towards
school fees of respondent No.2. At the time of passing of this order
present application was pending at the relevant time. The relief
claimed in earlier application and the present application are different.
Section 23 of the Act is silent about bar from claiming subsequent
reliefs by the aggrieved person. Section 23 of the Act does not provide
that subsequent application for claiming relief is maintainable. In this
background object of the Act is to be seen. The object of the Act is to
provide protection to the aggrieved person from act of domestic
violence. When the provision is silent about claiming subsequent relief
the object of the Act is to be considered. Subsequent application for
interim relief is maintainable if, the relief claimed is other than the
relief already granted by the Court. By this application applicant prayed
for the relief is different than the earlier relief. For this reason it is held
that the present application is maintainable.
24. The respondent has questioned maintainability of the application
on the ground that the application is time barred. This argument
cannot be endorsed for the reason that the act of domestic violence is
continuing one.
25. Ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that applicant
has not come with clean hands by submitting that applicant has
suppressed many incidences. In support he relied on
i) Union Of India And Others Vs. Muneesh
Suneja, (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 92
ii) Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114
..17/
-- 16 of 23 --
17 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
iii) Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria Vs. State of
Haryana And Others ( 1983) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 333
All these case laws are perused. The facts involved in the
above case laws are not applicable to the present application. Further
what prejudice is caused to the respondents and how applicant has not
come with clean hands is not explained or shown by the respondents.
26. For the reasons recorded above it is held that the
application prima facie discloses that the domestic violence is caused by
the respondent No.1 to the applicants. Finding to Point No.1 is
recorded in the affirmative.
As to Point No.2:
27. Admittedly the applicant No.1 is residing separately from
the respondent No.1 since 26th December 2018. After filing of the
petition nothing is on record to establish that the respondent No.1 has
committed any act of domestic violence. The relief for protection order
prohibiting respondent No.1 from committing act of domestic violence
towards applicant No.1 and her family members is in the nature of
some apprehension. The relief of Protection Order is not justified at this
juncture. The reason is the applicant No.1 and respondent are living
separately. The evidence is required to appreciate actually what
apprehension of domestic violence which respondents may cause to the
applicant No.1. For these reasons finding to Point No.2 is recorded in
the negative.
..18/
-- 17 of 23 --
18 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
As to Point No.3:
28. The applicant No.1 has prayed for monthly interim
maintenance of Rs.1,26,000/ to herself and Rs.59,000/ towards
maintenance of applicant No.2. The respondent has shown his net
income as Rs.1,94,000/ and expenses of Rs.1,32,000/ in his affidavit
of assets and liabilities. The applicant has not shown any income as of
now in her affidavit of assets and liabilities. It reveals from the
affidavit of assets and liabilities of respondent No.1 and the bank
statement filed by the respondent No.1 that he receives more amount
than the salary claimed by him. The amount of interim maintenance
claimed by the applicant jointly comes to Rs.2,85,000/.
29. Admittedly, the applicant No.1 is an architect, was director
in a company, from educated and well to do family. The respondent
No.1 is highly qualified having dependent his mother and applicants.
The mother of respondent No.1 is also getting pension of Rs.32,000/
per month. The liabilities can be shared by the respondent No.1 and his
mother. Likewise, applicant being architect was earning prior to the
marriage can secure means of earning. As per applicant respondent
No.1 is getting salary of Rs.4,10,000/ to 5,00,000/ per month. The
respondent No.1 has submitted his net salary as Rs.1,94,884/ post
deduction. The account statement of the respondent No.1 reveals that
he has got income from his employer other than the salary. This fact is
supported by the contention of the respondent No.1 that he has to
return the commission to the employer as contracts were cancelled. If,
the contracts would not have been cancelled the respondent No.1 would
be benefited with the amount of commission as disclosing in his account
..19/
-- 18 of 23 --
19 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
statement. The total amount of commission comes to more than
Rs.39,00,000/. As per respondent No.1 this amount is fluctuating. If
the average of this amount is taken out and with the fact of non
availability of sufficient commission regularly, certainly handsome
amount per month can be calculated.
30. The amount of rent claimed by the applicant is Rs.50,000/
per month. In support applicant has filed on record the leave and
licence agreement. This Leave and licence agreement is executed by
her own close relative. The applicant has not claimed specific relief of
providing alternate accommodation or rent. The copy of Leave and
Licence Agreement executed by one of the close relative of the applicant
No.1 and absence of prayer for specific alternate accommodation
amount claimed towards rent cannot be considered as genuine. Inspite
of that the applicant is entitled to receive reasonable amount of rent
calculated by her.
31. Taking into consideration educational qualification of both
the parties, standard of living of applicants, expenses required for
maintenance of the applicant, liabilities of the respondent No.1, earning
capacity of the parties and all other relevant factors an amount of
Rs.40,000/ per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.25,000/ per month
for applicant No.2 will be just and reasonable. Accordingly finding is
recorded to the Point No.3 .
As to Point No.4:
32. As per applicant No.1 her parent given ornaments of
..20/
-- 19 of 23 --
20 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
Rs.20,62,497.21 at the time of marriage. The ornaments worth
Rs.8,95,489/ are in the custody of the applicant No.1. The applicant
No.1 has prayed for return of her Stridhan as per the list annexed to the
application at Exh.F,G and H. The respondent No.1 has specifically
denied about possession of these articles with them. Admittedly report
was lodged by the respondent No.1 against the applicant No.1 for theft
of the ornaments. The evidence about handing over of the ornaments
to the applicant by her parents and genuineness of the complaint lodged
by the respondent No.1 about the theft of ornaments can be considered
during trial. In absence of any prima facie evidence about the articles
mentioned in list Exh.F, G and H these ornaments cannot be ordered to
be delivered by way of an interim order under Section 23 of the Act. It
will be proper and legal to decide about valid custody of the ornaments
and articles on the basis of evidence during trial. For these reasons
finding to Point No.4 is recorded in the negative.
As to Point No.5:
33. It is the contention of applicant No.1 that respondent No.1
is planning to settle either at Canada or U.S.A.. On this apprehension
the applicant No.1 prayed that the passport of the respondent No.1 be
deposited in the Court or concerned authority be directed to impound
the passport. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied the
contention of the applicant. Further no document is placed on record to
support the contention of applicant No.1. There is no provision under
the Act which empowers this Court to direct the respondents to deposit
the passport or to direct the concerned authority for impounding of the
passport. For these reason finding to Point No.5 is recorded in the
..21/
-- 20 of 23 --
21 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
negative.
As to Point No.6:
34. The applicant No.1 contended that after marriage her name
is not changed in Aadhar Card and passport. The respondent No.1 is
not cooperating for registration of the marriage though application for
registration for marriage was filed by the father of applicant No.1. The
respondent No.1 is also not cooperating in getting Aadhar Card of son
which is required for admission and other purpose. As per respondent
No.1 he was ready to cooperate for registration of marriage but it was
the applicant No.1 who refused to register the same. Applicant No.1
contended that due to continuation of her premarital name she is not
able to explain every time that she is married and her name after
marriage is changed. The applicant prayed by way of interim relief that
the respondent be directed to cooperate by signing the relevant
document and remaining present before the authorities for registration
of marriage and for the purpose of getting required documents in the
name of son. The relief claimed by the applicant No.1 though depend
on the parties cooperation with each other but this Court under the
provision of the Act is not empowered to give direction under Section
23 of the Act. For these reasons finding to Point No.6 is recorded in the
negative.
As to Point No.7 & 8:
35. It is a matter of record that the applicant No.1 and
respondent No.1 have filed their affidavit of assets and liabilities. In the
assets and liabilities the parties have given their details about income,
loan and liabilities. The respondent No.1 has also submitted his salary
..22/
-- 21 of 23 --
22 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
certificate. For this reason direction to respondent No.1 for filing his
statement of bank account, loan accounts, statement of debit and credit
card and direction to his employer to produce his salary certificate is
not necessary by way of any interim order under Section 23 of the Act.
The applicant No.1 is at liberty if she dissatisfied with the statements
made in affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent No.1 to
call additional documents by invoking provisions of law. For these
reasons finding to Point No.7 & 8 are recorded in the negative.
As to Point No.9:
36. Applicant has prayed for an injunction restraining the
respondents from disposing or creating third party interest in the shared
household. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the
respondent No.1 has obtained loan for purchase of the shared
household. The applicant No.1 has not filed on record any document
which prima facie discloses that the respondents are trying to dispose
of or creating third party interest in respect of the shared household.
Mere apprehension does not justify or substantiate the contention of the
applicant No.1. For these reasons no injunction can be granted as
prayed by the applicant No.1. Finding to Point No.9 is recorded in the
negative.
As to Point No.10:
37. As per findings recorded to the above Points respondent is
directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/ and Rs.25,000/
to the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 respectively. The respondent
No.1 has not paid any amount to the applicants till today. It will be in
the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.1 to pay monthly
..23/
-- 22 of 23 --
23 C.C.NO.69/DV/2020
interim maintenance from the date of application. For the above
reasons following order is passed.
O R D E R
1. Application is partly allowed.
2. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month to the applicant
No.1 and Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) per month to
the applicant No.2 from the date of application till decision of main
application.
3. The copy of the order be given to both the parties free of
cost and the compliance be made under Section 24 of the Act.
4. Dictated on computer and pronounced in the open Court.
( K.H.Thombre )
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 11.10.2022 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai
vnh
../
-- 23 of 23 --