Final Order 2

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 143 DV 2021 Judelene Vs Tressan and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-003629-2021
ORDER BELOW EXH.3
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides. Perused written notes of
arguments.
2. The applicant approached this court under Section 12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred as
D.V. Act, and filed this application in it for the various interim reliefs for
residence, injunction, protection order, maintenance and compensation.
3. In the main application the applicant Mrs. Judelene D’Souza,
pleaded and alleged various acts of domestic violence contending that her
marriage with Respondent No.1, Mr. Tressan Coelho, solemnized on
09.11.2019, at Bandra, Mumbai. Then she had been to his house at
Malad, Mumbai. The remaining respondents/his parents were residing
separately. All of them demanded dowry repeatedly, taken away her
stridhan, caused her physical and emotional violence in various ways as
narrated in the main application. Therefore, during pendency and till the
decision of the main application applicant sought the above mentioned
interim reliefs.
4. Respondent No.1, vide his say, Exhs.7 and 9, to main and interim
relief applications, denied all the adverse allegations. Respondent Nos.2
and 3, not filed any say. The summary of his defence is that all the
allegations are false and those should be put to strict proof. Applicant
caused cruelty to him and filed the present application with intention to
extort money. She deserves no sympathy and respondent is entitled to
divorce. The applicant and her family are defaming him. Their acts
caused immense mental pain and torture to him.
5. Both the parties also filed rejoinders to their respective replies and
denied their subsequent claims. They also filed on record various
Page - 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
C. C. No. 143 DV 2021 Judelene Vs Tressan and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-003629-2021
documents, besides their respective affidavits of Assets and Liabilities, in
which parties made adverse claims about their income and other aspects
of life.
6. The submissions of arguments are in tune with their respective
contentions. Considering adverse pleadings of both the parties, their
submissions and other facts and circumstances I framed following points
for my determination and recorded my findings on each of them as
follows for the reasons discussed below-
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does from the material on record applicant succeeded
in making out prima facie case of commission of
domestic violence against her by the respondent ? ..In the affirmative.
2. Whether applicant is entitled for the relief of interim
maintenance as prayed for ? ...In the negative.
3. What order ? ..Appln. is rejected.
R E A S O N S
As to Point No.1 – Domestic violence
7. After going through the main application, Exh.1, the applicant
made detailed pleadings about the acts caused by respondents. In support
of it she filed on record various documents particularly complaint lodged
to police, the subsequent First Information Report and statements
recorded during investigation of the said matter. She further filed counter
reply. All these facts are supported by her affidavit.
8. The Respondent No.1, denied all the allegations, but admitted the
fact that there are disputes going on between them. The relationship and
separation is also admitted by him. The other respondents not filed any
say. Except bare denials and affidavit of Respondent No.1, there is
nothing on record. If these aspects considered in the light of admitted
Page - 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
C. C. No. 143 DV 2021 Judelene Vs Tressan and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-003629-2021
facts pertaining to relationship, shared household and separation, it can be
concluded prima facie that the respondents caused various acts of
physical and emotional violence, as alleged by the applicant. Therefore, I
recorded my findings on the Point No.1, in the affirmative.
Point No.2, Reliefs -
9. The law is well settled the interim reliefs are not to be granted in
routine manner. Such a relief are of extra ordinary nature to be granted
only in the cases of extreme urgency to save the interest of justice. Such
reliefs being based only on affidavits and material produced at initial
stage, without subjecting it to any cross examination or strict scrutiny,
those to be granted only in exceptional cases, where there is extreme
urgency and interest of justice demands so.
10. In the present matter as stated above, the applicant claimed interim
residence order, interim injunction, interim protection order, interim
maintenance and compensation.
11. Regarding maintenance besides pleadings both the parties also filed
on record the affidavits of Assets and Liabilities. If we go to the pleadings
of the applicant pertaining to the facts necessitating her the immediate
need of interim maintenance are totally missing. It is nowhere pleaded
why she is urgent need of interim maintenance. Further, her Assets and
Liabilities affidavit shows that she possesses Master Degree in Commerce
and serving as Branch Operations Manager with Kotak Mahindra Bank
and earning salary of Rs.6,30,000/- p.a., besides other income generating
from her savings. The whole record also reflects that her parents are also
not totally dependent on her.
12. The Respondent No.1, is also earning good income and capable to
make payment of maintenance. But as stated above and revealed from
Page - 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
C. C. No. 143 DV 2021 Judelene Vs Tressan and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-003629-2021
record no urgency found to be pleaded by the applicant for granting any
urgent interim maintenance. Merely because respondent is capable of
paying maintenance for want of pleadings and without any urgent need of
maintenance to prevent vagrancy or any other ill effects, interim
maintenance can not be granted.
13. Same is the case with the other reliefs, i.e. interim residence order,
interim injunction, interim protection order and compensation. Nothing
pleaded about the need of these urgent reliefs either in this application or
main application. It is noticed that applicant is the only daughter of her
parents and residing with them in their house after separation. Since then
there occurred nothing amongst both the parties which will create the
need of passing of any interim protection order in her favour. Thus, there
is neither shared household, nor acts of domestic violence going on or
there is anything which will create the need of urgent residence order or
protection order. For the same reasons compensation also can not be
granted.
14. The record clearly reflect that applicant belongs to sound
background. She is highly educated and independent woman. She is
leading life on her own without having any dependency on anybody for
any material necessity of her life. These basic aspects of the applicant’s
case reflect that there is no need of any immediate urgent relief though
findings on Point No.1, decided in her favour.
15. As such though findings on Point No.1, decided in favour of
applicant, no interim relief can be granted. Therefore, I recorded my
finding on Point No.2, in the negative, for the reasons discussed above
pertaining to want of immediate need of interim reliefs and other facts
and circumstances. There remained no option, but to reject the application
in view of the finding on Point No.2, hence order -
Page - 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
C. C. No. 143 DV 2021 Judelene Vs Tressan and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-003629-2021
ORDER
The application is rejected.
Sd/-
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 02.03.2024 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --