Order 4

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 179 DV 2023 Mrs. Shazli Vs Mr. Shahzaman and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008767-2023
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION DATED 26.03.2024
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. By way of this application, the applicant sought removal of the
respondent No.1, from matrimonial home and injunction against him to
enter in the home and maintain status quo, mainly on the grounds that she
has approached this court under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, hereinafter referred as D.V. Act, as respondents
are committing various act of domestic violence against her, as narrated
in the main application, Exh.1.
3. The summary of the present application is that Respondent No.1,
Mr. Shahzaman, repeatedly committing acts of domestic violence and
therefore, such relief is necessary.
4. Respondents denied the allegations and submitted that such a relief
can not be granted.
5. The submissions of the applicant are in tune with the contents of
the Exh.1 and present application. Ld. Advocate also played the video
filed on the record in the pen drive, wherein the respondent is shown
talking in loud voice and as submitted thrown the phone of the applicant.
The respondents denied the allegations and explained that the video is of
the room of the respondent himself wherein applicant entered and caused
nuisance though residing separately since last so many years.
6. The relief sought are of such a nature that if those are allowed and
respondent is removed from the house he will come on road and loss the
right of enjoyment of his own property. Therefore, very strong case is
required. After going through the application it is noticed that it is not
disputed by the applicant that the room, where the incidence played
Page - 1/3
-- 1 of 3 --
C. C. No. 179 DV 2023 Mrs. Shazli Vs Mr. Shahzaman and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008767-2023
before this court on mobile phone occurred, is belonged to respondent
and he resides there and in his possession since long.
7. It is also not in dispute that applicant entered there and that
incidence occurred. If these undisputed fact coupled with the contents of
the video taken into account collectively considered, it can be inferred
that applicant herself incited the incidence. So also the incidence seen in
the video can not be said to be so serious and of such a nature that he can
be directed to remove himself from his own house.
8. Somewhat contradictory conduct of the applicant is noticed by this
court. With this application and the criminal case pending before this
court between same parties accused himself prayed for installation of
C.C. T.V. cameras in the matrimonial house/shared household. If the
situation is as it is, as alleged by the applicant in this application the
prudent conduct of any human being is that he will also agreed to such
prayer and perhaps he himself request to install such evidence collecting
mechanism against the respondents.
9. But to utter surprise, applicant strongly objected to it and submitted
that such C.C. T.V. cameras can not be installed. There is no justifiable
reasons forwarded by her except intrusion in privacy. This objection is
also doubtful in view of facts and circumstances pleaded and presented.
Thus, conduct of the applicant and the objection raised by her creates
ground to draw the adverse inference against her and her credentials can
be doubted and it can be inferred that allegations are not genuine.
10. It is not in dispute that domestic violence can not be tolerated. But
at the same time the court must be mindful of the fact that while granting
any relief under D.V. Act, relations between parties are strained and
every act of expressing difference or protest to any action of opposite side
Page - 2/3
-- 2 of 3 --
C. C. No. 179 DV 2023 Mrs. Shazli Vs Mr. Shahzaman and ors.
CNR-MHMM18-008767-2023
can not be termed as domestic violence. That thin line of difference must
be considered and balance of interests of both the parties are bound to be
maintained. On this test also application fails.
11. In view of above discussed facts and circumstances and legal
aspects it can be easily inferred that application is devoid of merit and
reliefs can not be granted. Accordingly, order -
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Sd/-
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 04.04.2024 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 3/3
-- 3 of 3 --