Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 78 DV 2022 Leela Vs Naresh
CNR-MHMM18-004176-2022
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEFS
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. The applicant approached this court under Section 12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred as D.
V. Act, for short, contending that her marriage solemnized on 22.05.1994,
at Santacruz, Mumbai. On 26.09.1995, a son was born out of said
wedlock. From year 1995 to year 2004, the respondent allegedly caused
various acts of domestic violence, as narrated in this application. The
applicant fade up with the harassment and left the matrimonial house in
the year 2004 and started residing separately with her son leaving the
respondent. When she left matrimonial house she left all her valuables
there along with important documents. Now she is in need of certain basic
requirements to lead life, she claimed relief of residence, maintenance,
etc. in this main application. Relying on the same allegations she sought
interim reliefs of the same nature in this application.
3. The respondents denied all the allegations. They countered it
pleading that the respondent has taken all care of the applicant when she
was in his company. He repeatedly changed accommodations at several
places. For no fault on his part without any cogent reason the applicant
left the matrimonial house with son. He himself suffered harassment. The
applicant kept their son in the hostel and not informed to respondent
about his whereabouts. Under the hope of reconciliation he has not
resorted to other reliefs. There is tremendous delay of 18 years. The
application is filed with view to harass him. He is not in possession any of
the valuables or documents. Applicant is having sufficient means to earn
her livelihood. The main application itself not tenable. Therefore,
application for interim reliefs shall be rejected.
Page - 1/3
-- 1 of 3 --
C. C. No. 78 DV 2022 Leela Vs Naresh
CNR-MHMM18-004176-2022
4. 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 negative.
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
5. Admittedly, the applicant left the matrimonial house in the year
2004, i.e. before coming into force of D.V. Act. All the allegations are of
prior nature, i.e. the acts pleaded allegedly occurred before
commencement of the D.V. Act, i.e. before year 2005. For granting any
relief under D.V. Act. The basic conditions to be specified are, there must
be share household and in such a household there must be domestic
violence caused by a person in domestic relationship.
6. In this matter all the allegations are pertaining to the acts allegedly
caused before year 2005. It is specifically contended that after leaving of
the applicant in the year 2004, there occurred no contacts between them
and parties came in contact with each other only after filing of the present
matter. It means when the Act came into force neither there was shared
household and consequent domestic relationship and nor there caused any
domestic violence. Therefore, application is not tenable.
Page - 2/3
-- 2 of 3 --
C. C. No. 78 DV 2022 Leela Vs Naresh
CNR-MHMM18-004176-2022
7. The provisions of the D.V. Act, are perspective and not
retrospective. No doubt there may be exceptions. Such exceptions may
accrued in case of continuous wrong, but in this matter there are no such
allegations of continuous violence. The parties clearly separated since
long back. They were not in contact with each other. Therefore, the said
analogy of continuous cause of action, as well is not applicable to this
case.
8. Thus, it is clear from the pleading that there is no shared household
and consequent domestic relationship. As such no domestic violence can
be said to be caused to the applicant at the hands of respondent. No prima
facie case of domestic violence made out. Accordingly, I recorded my
finding on Point No.1, in the negative and consequently on Point No.2, as
well as negative. Hence order -
ORDER
Application is rejected.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 10.08.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 3/3
-- 3 of 3 --