Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 137 DV 2023 Sneha Vs Asha and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-006583-2023
COMMON ORDER BELOW EXHS.6 AND 9
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. The first application, Exh.6, is for interim reliefs, seeking
protection against respondents as per Section 18 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, hereinafter referred as D.V. Act
and Section 19 of the said Act to restrain them from entering into
premises of the room where applicant is staying.
3. It is the case of the applicant that her marriage with Mr. Ganesh
Meghshyam Kadam, was solemnized on 02.02.2013. The respondents are
her in-laws. After marriage she came to reside at the place where her
husband is residing in a common house.
4. The said house is two storied building. On ground floor all the
respondents are residing. The first floor is having four rooms. Out of
these four rooms the applicant and her husband occupied three rooms and
started residing separately since their marriage. Remaining room was
occupied by one of the respondent, Mr. Govinda Meghshyam Kadam, and
it is still in his possession.
5. It is alleged that respondents are harassing applicant and her
husband in various ways as narrated in the main application. Therefore,
she filed application under Section 12 of D.V. Act and present
application, Exh.6, in it for above reliefs. Later on she also filed
application, Exh.9, to direct respondents to remove the C.C. T.V. cameras
installed there.
6. The condition precedent to grant any relief under D.V. Act, is that
there must be domestic relationship existed between the parties residing
in the shared household and during such residence the respondents should
cause the domestic violence. All these terms are specifically defined in
Page - 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No. 137 DV 2023 Sneha Vs Asha and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-006583-2023
the Act and if all these definitions read in context of each other, each of
these requirements must be satisfied for granting reliefs. If any of these
requirements are missing no relief can be granted. For scrutinizing this
aspect, if we go to the definitions of shared household, it means any
household where aggrieved persons lives or at any stage as lived in a
domestic relationship. The term domestic relationship means relationship
between two persons who live or have any point of time, lived in a shared
household.
7. The specific query in this regard is made to the Ld. Advocate for
the applicant by drawing her attention towards above definitions and the
fact that though both the parties are residing in the same building they are
occupying different premises. It can not be said that it is a shared
household and while residing there jointly, certain acts caused and those
can not be termed as acts of domestic violence. In reply it is submitted
that relief can be granted as applicant and respondents residing in the
same building and are in close relations. Ld. Advocate for the respondents
however, not agreed to it and submitted that requirements are not
satisfied, therefore, application shall be rejected.
8. It is the case of the applicant, as stated above that since her
marriage she is residing separately with her husband Mr. Ganesh
Meghshyam Kadam, in a separate part of the building on first floor
constituting separate premises. From these admitted facts, pleadings and
other documents, it can be easily inferred that applicant never lived with
the respondents under common roof though building is same. She can not
be said to be lived or living in a shared household and in domestic
relationship with the respondents. Therefore, no reliefs can be granted.
9. In the alternative even if it is presumed that applicant is residing
with the respondents, this is somewhat peculiar matter. In the said matter
Page - 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No. 137 DV 2023 Sneha Vs Asha and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-006583-2023
leaving husband the applicant approached this court against other in-laws,
who are eleven in number and residing in the same house claiming certain
reliefs mainly of civil nature alleging certain acts of harassment against
them.
10. The pleadings are vague. The allegations are of very general nature
and questionable as during long span of time of residents in the same
building applicant not approached this court. This suspicious allegations
if considered in the light of consequent balance of interest of both the
parties, about situation going to be accrued on account of granting reliefs,
it is clear that respondent will suffer irreparable loss as they will be
restrained from enjoying their property freely as per their own volition
and requirements.
11. The granting of reliefs of exclusive civil nature such as injunction,
which by law to be granted by Civil Court within it’s exclusive
jurisdiction, on the basis of such vagueness is nothing but causing serious
prejudice to the interest of respondents. As such in the alternative also no
interim relief can be granted.
12. Same is the case with application to remove C.C.T.V. cameras
from the premises. As respondents are free to use their property in their
own way and protect it using safety measures, no such relief can be
granted. It is not the case that such cameras are interfering in privacy of
the applicant as they are installed outside. No case for granting this relief
also made out.
13. The whole application and documents produced if considered in
context of each other it is clear that the applicant is intending to seek
certain reliefs of purely civil nature to be granted by Civil Court only, by
following some alternative ways. The reliefs to be granted under D.V.
Page - 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No. 137 DV 2023 Sneha Vs Asha and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-006583-2023
Act, are of summary nature to be granted only on the basis of affidavits.
Without finding strong prima facie case no such relief can be granted if
those are found to be purview of jurisdiction of Magistrate. Considering
this legal position also, in view of facts pleaded applicant is not entitled to
any interim relief. In view of these facts and circumstances and for the
reasons discussed above, following order -
ORDER
Both the applications are rejected.
Sd/-
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 03.04.2024 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --