Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 33 and 86 DV 2023
CNR-MHMM18-001674-2023
CNR-MHMM18-003754-2023
COMMON ORDER BELOW EXH.1,
(In C. C. No. 33 and 86 DV 2023)
1. Brief facts leading to passing of this order can be summarized as
follows -
Both the parties approached this court through Protection Officer,
by filing two counter applications against each other, under Section 12 of
of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter
referred as D.V. Act. In the first application, C.C.No.33 DV 2023, the
applicant Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj, contended that the respondent Mr.
Jagannath Ayodhyaprasad Saroj, hereinafter referred as main respondent,
is her husband. Other respondents are her in-laws. Out of the said
wedlock a son Master Harsh Jagannath Saroj, born. During her co-
habitation with all the respondents they caused various acts of domestic
violence, as narrated in this application. Finally she compelled to leave
matrimonial house with her son and claimed various reliefs, including
interim reliefs of maintenance, residence, etc.
After filing of this application, the one of the respondent, Miss.
Shanti Ayodhyaprasad Saroj, the sister-in-law/respondent in the previous
application, approached this court and filed another application bearing
C.C.No.86 DV 2023, against her sister-in-law, i.e. applicant in previous
application and her other relatives. In this application she also claims all
the reliefs, including injunction, maintenance, residence, etc.
Both the parties vide their respective replies, denied the adverse
allegations and claimed reliefs.
2. Heard both the sides. Their submissions are in tune with their
respective contentions. Both the adverse parties contended that their
respective opposite side caused various acts of domestic violence.
Considering adverse pleadings, submissions of both the parties and
Page - 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No. 33 and 86 DV 2023
CNR-MHMM18-001674-2023
CNR-MHMM18-003754-2023
record, 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 which of the parties,
succeeded in making out prima facie case of
commission of domestic violence against other ?
....Finding recorded affirmative,
upto C.C.No.33/DV/2023 and in the
negative in C.C.No.86/DV/2023
2. Whether which party is entitled to any of the reliefs, as
prayed for ?
....Interim reliefs partly allowed in
C.C.No.33/DV/2023 and wholly
rejected in C.C.No.86/DV/2023
3. What order ? ….Prayers partly allowed in
C.C.No.33/DV/2023 and wholly
rejected in C.C.No.86/DV/2023
R E A S O N S
3. If we go through both these applications, it can be inferred that the
applicant Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj, is wife of Mr. Jagannath Saroj. The
relationship of Mr. Jagannath Saroj, with son Master Harsh, is also not
disputed. Further, it is also admitted that Geeta and her son are residing
separately and Mr. Jagannath Saroj, made no arrangement for survival of
Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj, and her son Master Harsh. The allegations
made by Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj, in the application clearly show that
Mr. Jagannath, caused various acts of domestic violence against her. The
affidavit in support of her contentions and several documents produced
also corroborated those facts. The fact of separate residence, non-
arrangement of any money for survival of Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj,
and her son, if considered with this evidence, it can be said that Mr.
Jagannath Saroj and other respondents caused various acts of domestic
violence against Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj, and her son.
Page - 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No. 33 and 86 DV 2023
CNR-MHMM18-001674-2023
CNR-MHMM18-003754-2023
4. Against the above discussed aspects of the matter, if we considered
the case of another applicant Miss. Shanti, it seems weak, as Mrs. Geeta
Jagannath Saroj, is residing separately and since long there are no
repetition of incidences causing any illegal act against said applicant and
other persons. There is also doubt whether the said applicant or any other
persons can be termed as aggrieved persons within the meaning of D. V.
Act. Allowing her prayers and that too for other persons are against the
spirit of the said legislation, enacted to protect the women in distress.
Therefore, said application lacks merit and no reliefs can be granted in
favour of the applicants in this matter, against Mrs. Geeta Saroj.
5. In view of above observations, I recorded my findings in respect of
Point No.1, as proved only against respondents in C.C.No.33 DV 2023
and not proved against Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj. So far as reliefs are
concerned, the maintenance and house allowance can be granted to Mrs.
Geeta Jagannath Saroj, and her son. Other reliefs can not be granted at
this juncture. Accordingly, following order -
ORDER
a. The prayers for interim reliefs in C.C.No.33 DV 2023, is partly
allowed and respondent Mr. Jagannath Ayodhyaprasad Saroj, is herewith
directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) per month to the applicant, Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj,
and Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) per month to her son Master
Harsh Jagannath Saroj, from the date of filing of application till the
decision of the main application towards interim maintenance.
b. The respondent Mr. Jagannath Ayodhyaprasad Saroj, shall also pay
additional amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, towards house rent to the
applicant Mrs. Geeta Jagannath Saroj, from the month of April 2025, till
the decision of the main application.
Page - 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No. 33 and 86 DV 2023
CNR-MHMM18-001674-2023
CNR-MHMM18-003754-2023
c. The prayers for other interim reliefs in C.C.No.33 DV 2023, are
rejected and all the prayers for interim reliefs in C.C.No.86 DV 2023, are
also rejected.
d. The copy of this order shall be given free of costs to both the
parties.
e. If respondent Mr. Jagannath Ayodhyaprasd Saroj, failed to pay
amount as ordered above towards interim reliefs, the applicant Mrs. Geeta
Jagannath Saroj, is directed to file separate application bearing separate
number for recovery of arrears.
f. Copy of this order shall be kept in both the matters.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 21.03.2025 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --