Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 88 DV 2022 Naseem Vs Saddam
CNR-MHMM18-004805-2022
ORDER BELOW EXH.5
1. Perused record and written notes of arguments. Heard both sides.
This is an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred as D.V. Act.
2. The applicant approached this court for various reliefs contending
that the respondent Mr. Saddam Ahmed Khan, is her husband, with
whom her marriage was solemnized on 29.09.2019, at Mumbai. Out of
said marriage, a daughter born, who is now residing with the applicant.
After marriage, during cohabitation the respondent caused various acts of
domestic violence as narrated in the main application. Finally, these acts
compelled her to leave matrimonial house. The applicant has no place to
reside and any means to survive herself. Therefore, she is in need of
residence, maintenance and protection, in the form of interim relief till the
decision of main application.
3. The respondent vide his say, Exh.18, denied all the adverse
allegations and claimed that all the allegations are false. He had not
caused any act of domestic violence. The applicant herself is adamant and
picking up quarrels with respondent on petty issues. She even assaulted to
him and doubting his character. Applicant is teasing him and causing
various acts of physical and mental cruelty.
4. Considering adverse pleadings, written and oral submissions of
both the parties, 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.
Page - 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No. 88 DV 2022 Naseem Vs Saddam
CNR-MHMM18-004805-2022
2. Whether applicant is entitled for the relief of interim
maintenance as prayed for ? ....In the affirmative.
3. What order ? ….Application is partly
allowed.
R E A S O N S
5. Both the parties, in support of their respective pleadings filed on
record, affidavits and various documents. The applicant besides screen
shots of WhatsApp Chat, medical record also filed on record, N.C.
Report, which corroborate the acts alleged by her. In the same manner
respondent also filed on record photograph and other documents. From
where it appears that applicant is throttling him. He also filed on record
the copy of police complaint. He has also produced the pen drive
containing those videos. After going through those videos it is noticed
that they are very short and no inference about the actual act of assault
can be drawn from them. There are several questions raised to the
conscious of prudent man about those videos, which negated the
consideration of these videos at this stage.
6. If we go further the record reflects that the fact of desertion and
non-arrangement of funds for earning livelihood of the applicant and her
daughter is admitted. The relationship and residence in shared household
is also admitted. These aspects leads to inference that the economic
violence is almost admitted. In this background if we considered the
above incidence of photograph, the balance tilts in favour of the
applicant. The conduct of the respondent from whole record also reflects
the fact that respondent taking no care of the day to day requirements of
the applicant and her daughter.
Page - 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No. 88 DV 2022 Naseem Vs Saddam
CNR-MHMM18-004805-2022
7. In addition to it respondent except bare denials by way of their say
and affidavit raised no concrete defence. The allegations made by
respondents needs some severe test such as cross examination during
trial. A single incidence shown in photograph can not be said to enough
to disbelieve the applicant’s version. As such it can be inferred that the
respondent committed various acts of domestic violence against the
applicant, including emotional and economic violence. Therefore, I
recorded my findings on Point No.1, in the affirmative.
8. So far as reliefs are concerned the applicant pleaded that she has no
means of income. In her affidavit of Assets and Liabilities she repeated
the same fact and contended that she is totally dependent on her parents.
The respondent denied this fact and contended that she has several means
of income including a cosmetics shop and deliberately not filed on record
any documents. The action of perjury can be taken against her. However,
this submission can not be accepted at this stage of interim reliefs.
Further, as respondent is paying nothing it is not expected that she should
wait to his mercy for earning day to day livelihood.
9. The respondent admitted that he runs a shop and earns monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- per month. There are other dependents on him as
well, besides other liabilities. Respondent is able-bodied person and
bound to maintain the applicant and her daughter. Merely because income
is little low, he can not be absolved of his basic liability to maintain the
applicant and her daughter. It is also brought on record by the applicant
that respondent has solemnized another marriage and resided with the
newly wedded wife. This fact is also against the respondent and therefore,
in these background aspects of the matter it can be inferred that
respondent is bound to pay the maintenance and residence allowance.
However, as respondent resides in Uttar Pradesh and applicant resides in
Page - 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No. 88 DV 2022 Naseem Vs Saddam
CNR-MHMM18-004805-2022
Mumbai. The protection order can not be granted. Accordingly, I
recorded my findings on Point No.2, as partly proved. Considering the
facts pleaded pertaining to income of main respondent and material came
on record in support of it and other legal and factual aspects of the matter,
I am of the opinion that following order will serve the cause of justice, -
ORDER
a. The application is partly allowed.
b. The respondent Mr. Saddam Ahmed Khan, is herewith directed to
pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month to the applicant,
Naseem Saddam Khan, and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) per
month to their daughter, Miss Mehvish (Myza) Saddam Khan, from the
date of filing of application till it’s final disposal.
c. The respondent, Mr. Saddam Ahmed Khan, is also directed to pay
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousands only) towards house rent.
d. The prayer for other interim reliefs is rejected.
e. The copy of this order shall be given free of costs to both the
parties and if Respondent failed to comply the order the applicant is
directed to file separate application bearing separate number for recovery
of arrears.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 16.12.2024 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --