Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 78 DV 2018 Pakiya Vs William and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-005720-2018
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. The applicant approached this court, through Protection Officer,
under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, hereinafter referred as D. V. Act, for short, contending that
respondent is her husband and he caused various acts of domestic
violence as narrated in this application. Therefore, she was compelled to
left the matrimonial house and now residing separately with her son
leaving the respondents. 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 vide their say, Exh.7.
The summary of his defence is that respondents has not caused any of the
acts of domestic violence as narrated. Rather applicant suppressed certain
facts about her mental and physical condition. Despite that he adjusted
himself with her. The applicant used to pick up quarrels and rather
without any justifiable cause left matrimonial house. He has taken all care
of her. His income is less. The applicant also filed false criminal case.
Respondents themselves suffered harassment and approached Family
Court for divorce. Therefore, application for interim reliefs shall be
rejected.
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-
Page - 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No. 78 DV 2018 Pakiya Vs William and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-005720-2018
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 affirmative.
3. What order ? ..Appln. is partly allowed.
R E A S O N S
5. As stated above, both the parties filed their respective pleadings
which are supported by affidavits. The applicant in addition to it filed on
record certain documents particularly N.C. Reports, criminal complaint,
photos, etc. The relationship as well as the fact that applicant and her son
are residing separately since long and respondents made no substantial
arrangement for their livelihood, are also admitted, though it is came on
record that in the mean time respondent paid certain amount. The conduct
of the respondent from whole record also reflects the fact that respondents
taking no care of the day to day requirements of the applicant and her son.
The allegations pertaining to domestic violence are also supported by
affidavit and other record.
6. Against it, respondents except bare denials by way of their say and
affidavit raised no concrete defence. Further they had not denied the fact
of marriage and separation without any arrangement of means of
livelihood. In such a situation it can be inferred that the respondents
committed various acts of domestic violence against the applicant,
including emotional and economic violence. Therefore, I recorded my
findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, in the affirmative, as such reliefs prayed
for are bound to be granted.
Page - 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No. 78 DV 2018 Pakiya Vs William and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-005720-2018
7. In this regard it is admitted that applicant has no means of income.
Against it respondent admitted the fact that he is in private service and
now working with a hotel at Maldives. The main respondent is able-
bodied person and bound to maintain the applicant and their son. The
applicant mainly claimed maintenance and residence allowance.
Admittedly she is not residing with the respondent. Considering the facts
pleaded pertaining to income of main respondent and material came on
record in support of it I am of the opinion that following order will serve
the cause of justice, -
ORDER
a. The application is partly allowed.
b. The main respondent Mr. William Jackson Meialagan Nadar, is
herewith directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) per
month to the applicant, Mrs. Pakiya Regila William Jackson, and
Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) per month to their son, Master
John Frederick, from the date of filing of application till the month of
August 2023, as past interim maintenance.
c. The respondent Mr. William Jackson Meialagan Nadar, is herewith
directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five
Thousand) per month to the applicant, Mrs. Pakiya Regila William
Jackson, and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to their son,
Master John Frederick, from today till the decision of the main
application towards maintenance and education expenses of the child, so
that applicant shall not be compelled to knock the doors of court again
and again for enhancement of the maintenance amount.
d. The respondent, Mr. William Jackson Meialagan Nadar, is also
directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards house
rent.
Page - 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No. 78 DV 2018 Pakiya Vs William and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-005720-2018
e. The prayer for other interim reliefs is rejected.
f. The copy of this order shall be given free of costs to both the
parties.
g. If respondent Mr. William Jackson Meialagan Nadar, failed to
comply the order the applicant is directed to file separate application
bearing separate number for recovery of arrears.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 28.08.2023 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --