Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018
Pratibha @ Gunjan V/s. Sumit.
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF (Exh.-3)
The applicant has filed the present application under section
23 of the Protection of Woman from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(here-in-after referred as, 'the PWDV Act') for maintenance order,
protection order and for direction to return jewellery. According to the
applicant, she married with respondent No.1 on 10/03/2016, at Village
Singhawal, Post Singramau, Dist. Jaunpur, UP. Her father has incurred
expenses near about I18,00,000/- in the marriage for catering, hall,
decoration etc. After marriage the applicant went with the respondent at
her matrimonial home at Bhopal. Initially four to five days were going
peacefully. Thereafter, respondent No.1 and her in-laws i.e. respondent
No.2 to No.4 started to torture her by saying that, her father had not given
car. The applicant persuaded, as there was no discussion about the same
but respondents did not pay any heed and continued abusing, taunting and
torturing to the applicant. The respondent No.1 used to physical abuse in
the night in most cruel manner. Respondent No.4 also by jointing hands
with father-in-law abused parents of applicant in filthy language. Even it
was not permissible her to meet anybody and they used to confine her in
home by locking door.
2. It is contended that, the applicant called his brother
Mrugendra at Bhopal and narrated him all the tortures at the hands of
respondents. Respondents also shouted upon applicant and her brother
and pressurized him to take the applicant in the parental home and unless
they have to give the Swift car. On 13/06/2016 the applicant with her
brother came at her parental home, as per the say of respondent No.1.
However, the respondent did not turn to fetch her at her matrimonial
home. Even upon persuasion by her father and maternal uncle the
-- 1 of 8 --
~2~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
respondent did not pay heed. On 11/05/2017 the father of applicant
lodged complaint to police station Vakola.
3. Thus, according to the applicant she has been subjected to
domestic violence at the hands of respondents. It is contended that, she is
unable to maintain herself and have no income source. Per contra, the
respondent No.1 having the business of providing security guards and
earning I50,000/- p.m. Likewise, father-in-law of applicant is doing
brokerage business and earning about I1,00,000/- p.m. Lastly, the
applicant prayed that, application be allowed and respondents be directed
to not to alienate any gold silver ornaments and not to cause any domestic
violence to her and she also prayed I25,000/- p.m. as a maintenance.
Further, the applicant also sought relief of securing same level of alternate
accommodation for her.
4. Respondents have resisted the application by filing their say at
(Ex.-4). The respondent No.1 denied all the contention of applicant in toto.
The respondent admitted the relationship with the applicant but denied
that they have been caused any kind of domestic violence, as alleged. It is
contended that, by all respondents that present proceeding filed by the
applicant is abuse process of law and filed with malafied intention to black
mail and extract illegal money from respondents. It is contended that, the
applicant without justifiable reason deserted the company of the
respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is ready and willing to accept
without any grievances.
5. It is contended that, the applicant stayed at matrimonial home
at Bhopal only for three months i.e. from 13/03/2016 to 13/06/2016 and
she left matrimonial home with all articles, jewelry and stridhan. After
three to five days the applicant started calling the respondent No.1 and
asked to pay her parents loan, otherwise she will file false complaint
against respondents. The respondent No.1 was tried to settle the dispute
-- 2 of 8 --
~3~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
but in-vain. It is contended that, on 15/07/2016 the father-in-law i.e.
respondent No.3 filed police complaint against the father of the applicant
under section 420 of Indian Penal Code but no cognizance has been taken
by police.
6. It is contended that, the present proceeding is nothing but to
black mail respondents and extract money from them. The marriage of
applicant and respondent No.1 has been taken place at Uttar Pradesh. The
applicant used to reside at Bhopal at her matrimonial home. Therefore,
this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the present application. It
is contended that, the applicant is highly educated and getting income to
the tune of I25,000/- to I30,000/- p.m. by taking tuition. Per contra, the
respondent No.1 is office clerk in India First News and getting salary of
I7,000/- p.m. The respondent No.1 is having responsibility of his old aged
parents. The applicant is having earning source hence, she is not entitled
to maintenance, as no domestic violence at the hands of respondents.
Therefore, she is not entitled for any relief as sought. Lastly, respondents
prayed that, application be rejected.
7. The applicant filed her affidavit of Assets and Liabilities at
(Exh.-5). Despite of opportunities the respondent No.1 did not file his
affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. Therefore, on 18/09/2023 order to that
effect came to be passed. The applicant relied on documents like Marriage
Photographs, Wedding Card, List of Jewellery, complaint made to police
likewise, the respondent is also relied on the documents like bill of
transport, copy of complaint, copy of salary certificate, copy of jewellery
list.
8. I have heard Ld. Advocate Shri O. P. Dubey for the applicant.
But no argument advanced by the respondents. Hence, I have proceed to
decide the matter on merit.
-- 3 of 8 --
~4~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
9. Considering the applicant’s case and contentions of
respondents following points are arises for my determination. I have
recorded my findings thereon for the reasons, as under :-
Sr.
No. Points Findings
1. Does the applicant proved that, she has
been subjected the domestic violence at
the hands of respondent ? Yes.
2. Is applicant entitled for protection order,
as prayed ? Yes.
3. Is applicant entitled for monetary relief,
as prayed? Yes.
4. Is applicant entitled for alternate
accommodation and relief regarding
returning her stridhan, as prayed? No.
5. What order? Application is
partly allowed.
REASONS
As to point No.1
10. In order to get relief under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act
the applicant has to prove prima-faciely that, she has been subjected
domestic violence at the hands of respondents. Police complaint made by
her father against respondents. Now the contention of applicant is that, as
her father has not given motor car in the marriage the respondents used to
torture her. It is to be noted that, since 16/06/2016 the applicant used to
-- 4 of 8 --
~5~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
reside separately from respondent No.1. It is the defence of the respondent
No.1 that the applicant herself deserted him without any reason and
contention of applicant is that, due to domestic violence there was dispute
between her and respondent and as per say of respondents the applicant
left her matrimonial home with her brother. Therefore, it reveals that, the
relations have been strained between applicant and respondents. Even
both side have filed criminal complainants against each other. It is to be
noted that, since 16/06/2016 the applicant is residing with her parents
and no maintenance has been provided by the respondent No.1. to her. It
is nothing but domestic violence at the hands of respondents.
11. The complaint made by the applicant to the police station
Vakola, wherein it is contended that, she has been subjected to domestic
violence at the hands of respondents. Said contention has been also
reflected in the present domestic violence proceeding. Further, the
complaint made by father of respondent No.1 against father of applicant.
Complaint has been filed against father of applicant by father of
respondent No.1. The said complaint is in respect of cheating at the hands
of father of applicant to the father of respondent No.1. said complaint
came to be filed on 15/07/2016 but, as per the contention no action has
been taken by the police against father of applicant. The complaint is itself
sufficient to held that, the relationship between the applicant and
respondents have been strained and there was dispute between them. The
contention of the applicant that, she has been subjected to emotional
abuses is concerned they are relating to not providing car to respondent
No.1. Therefore, I hold that prima-faciely the applicant is subjected the
domestic violence at the hands of respondents. Hence, I record my finding
to point No.1 in affirmative.
-- 5 of 8 --
~6~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
As to point No.2.
12. This point is in respect of protection order. While answering
point No.1 I have concluded that the applicant has proved prima-faciely
that she has been subjected domestic violence at the hands of respondents.
The relations are strained. Therefore, in order to protect the interest of the
applicant, I answer for point No.2 in affirmative only against respondent
No.1. and I am in opinion that, the applicant is entitled to protection order
against respondent No.1.
As to point No.3.
13. This issue is in respect of monetary relief under section 23 of
Domestic Violence Act. It is contention of applicant that, the respondent
No.1 is doing business of providing security guard in MP and getting
I50,000/- p.m. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that, he is office
clerk in India First News and getting salary of I7,000/- and also having
responsibility of is old aged parents. It is to be noted that though applicant
contended that, the respondent No.1 is doing business of providing
security guard, but no documents to that effect filed on record. Further,
the respondent relied on salary certificate, which shows that, in the month
of April 2018 he was getting salary to the tune of I7,000/-. Admittedly, the
respondent No.1 has not filed his affidavit of Assets and Liabilities though
so many opportunities have been given. Therefore, in order to determine
the quantum of maintenance, I have relied on the salary certificate
submitted by the respondent No.1.
14. Further, no documentary evidence placed on record by
respondents in order to show that the applicant is taking tuitions and
getting smart income. Therefore, I hold that, applicant is not having any
means of maintenance and being husband it is responsibility of respondent
No.1 to provide sufficient means of maintenance to the applicant. So far
as, quantum of maintenance is concerned it has come on record that the
-- 6 of 8 --
~7~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
respondent No.1 is having salary to the tune of I7,000/- p.m. in the year
2018. Now it definitely been increased. The respondent No.1 is also having
responsibility of his old aged parents. Therefore, I am in opinion that,
Considering basic needs of applicant and standard of living of respondents
the maintenance of I4,000/- p.m. is sufficient, hence, I record my findings
to point No.3 as in affirmative.
As to point No.4.
15. The applicant has sought relief that, respondents shall not
alienate or transfer her gold ornaments and also sought relief of alternate
accommodation. In this regard, I would like to state here that, now the
applicant is staying with her parents, therefore, at present she is not at all
shelterless. Therefore, it is not just and proper to grant relief to that effect.
So far as, the relief regarding the jewellery is concerned it is also
contention of respondents that, the applicant left her matrimonial home
with her brother and at that time she has taken away all her articles,
jewellary alongwith her. Therefore, in order to decide the said point there
should be evidence on record. At present it cannot be concluded that, the
jewellary is in the possession of respondents. Therefore, considering rival
contention regarding jewellary, I am in opinion that, no relief, as sought
can be granted, at this stage. Hence, I record my findings to issue No.4 in
negative. In the result, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1 The application is partly allowed.
2 The respondent No.1 shall not cause any domestic
violence to applicant till final decision of the present
proceeding.
-- 7 of 8 --
~8~
C. C. NO. 41/DV/2018 ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
3 The respondent No.1 shall pay R.4,000/- p.m. to the
applicant, as a interim maintenance from date of filing of
the present application.
4 The respondent No.1 shall pay the cost of R.5,000/- of the
present application to the applicant.
5 Copy of this order be supplied free of cost to both the
parties.
Mumbai.
Date : 02/03/2024.
SRD.
Sd/-
Metropolitan Magistrate,
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on :- 02/03/2024.
Transcribed on :- 03/03/2024.
Checked on :- 15/03/2024.
Signed on :- 15/03/2024.
SRD
-- 8 of 8 --