Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: CNR No. MHMM18-0011822-2022 C. C. NO.199/DV/2022
Leena V/s. Kantilal & Ors.
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATIONS (EXH.-2) & (EXH.-2A)
The applicant in Domestic Violence Act proceeding against
respondents has filed the present application (Exh.-2) for interim
protection order and by way of filing application (Exh.-2A) the applicant
is seeking interim reliefs regarding maintenance order, compensation and
residence order against the respondents under the provisions of section 23
of Protection of Woman from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here-in-
after referred as, 'the PWDV Act').
2. According to the applicant, she married with the Mehul Shaha
on 27/05/2001. Her husband Mehul Shaha died on 17/06/2022, due to
massive cardiac arrest. The respondent No.1 is father-in-law, respondent
No.2 is mother-in-law, respondent No.3 is sister-in-law of applicant and
respondent No.4 is husband of respondent No.3. The applicant is having
son by name Mahin, who is now taking education. It is contended that,
during life time the respondent No.3 used to harass the applicant on
various grounds. The applicant is subjected verbal as well as emotional
abuse, at the hands of respondent No.2, who is her mother-in-law. It is
contended that, the respondent No.1 after death of husband of applicant
siphoned all the amount of policies and investments of her husband and
has not giving any amount for maintenance of applicant and her son. Thus,
according to the applicant she has been facing financial trouble due to act
of the respondent No.1. It is contended that, the respondents have
installed the CC TV Cameras in the home and thereby they are disturbing
privacy of applicant and her son.
3. It is contended that, her husband Late Mehul Shaha used to
run the
BINDI shop and said shop is their family business. The said
business majorly run by her husband and respondent No.1 used to take
-- 1 of 10 --
~2~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
care of wholesale business even he earning separately. Now the said shop
has been taken by respondent No.3 without permission of applicant and
she is taking entire income from the said shop. It is contended that, her
husband used to earn at around I.Fourteen Crores p.a. After death of her
husband, the respondent No.1 has taken entire amount of investments
made by her husband in various policies and mutual funds. The applicant
is working, as a dance teacher. Her son Mast. Mahin is totally depends
upon her. Thus, accordingly the applicant she has been subjected the
domestic violence at the hands of respondents, therefore, she prayed that,
applications be allowed and respondent be directed that, they shall not
cause any kind of domestic violence and shall not remove them from home
i.e. her shared household till final decision of the proceeding. The
applicant further sought relief that, respondent No.1 has siphoned entire
property of her husband, therefore, he is responsible to provide
maintenance to applicant and her child and claimed monthly maintenance
of I.25,000 p.m. and also sought relief of interim compensation and for
residence order.
4. The respondents by filing say at (Exh.-7) resisted the
proceeding of applicant. The respondent No.1 and No.2 have admitted
that the applicant is wife of their deceased son. It is contended that, after
sad demise of their son by name Mehul, there is no domestic relations
exists between them and applicant. Therefore, proceeding is not tenable.
The respondents denied all the contentions of applicant in toto. They
denied that, they have caused any kind of domestic violence to applicant,
as alleged. It is contended that, they are senior citizens and suffering from
various ailments. The applicant causing harassment to them. It is
contended that, for security of their life they have installed the CC TV
cameras in the house.
-- 2 of 10 --
~3~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
5. Further, it is contended that, in the year 2017 the respondent
No.1 took a policy in the name of his son Mehul with his own hard earned
money as he wanted to safeguard future of his son. It is contended that,
name of respondent No.1 is registered as a nominee to the policy stands in
the name of deceased Mehul and as per Standard Rule after demise of
policy holder the policy is by default transferred in the name of nominee.
Thus, according to respondents the applications are false one, therefore,
applicant is not entitled for any relief, as sought and prayed for rejection of
the applications.
6. The applicant has filed on record various documents in
support of her claim i.e. copy of marriage certificate, birth certificate of her
son, death certificate of her husband, copy of schedule which showing
mutual funds investments in the name of deceased husband, copy of Non
cognizable offence, photographs. The applicant has also filed her affidavit
of Asset and Liabilities,(Exh.-8).
7. The respondents also filed on record various documents like
copies of complaint, copies of Non cognizable offence, copy of orders
passed under the Protection of Senior Citizen Act, 2007. The respondent
No.1 despite of orders directing him to file his affidavit of assets and
liabilities, failed to produce the same.
8. I have heard elaborated arguments of Ld. Advocate Smt.
Bhavana Jadhav for applicant and Ld. Advocate Smt. Tareka Jethli for
respondents and also considered the written notes of arguments filed by
applicant at (Exh.-9) and (Exh.- 10).
9. Considering the rival pleadings of both parties following points
are arises for my determination. I have recorded my findings thereon for
the reasons, as under :-
-- 3 of 10 --
~4~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Does the applicant proved
prima-
faciely that, she has been subjected
the domestic violence at the hands
of the respondents ? Yes.
2. Is applicant entitled for relief of
protection order, as prayed? Partly Yes.
3. Is applicant entitled for relief of
maintenance, as prayed? Yes.
4 Is applicant entitled for relief of
alternate accommodation and
residence, as prayed?
No.
5. What order? Application is
partly allowed.
REASONS
As to point No.1 :-
10. First of all, I would like to state here that, in order to get
reliefs under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act, the applicant has to
prove
prima-faciely that, she has been subjected the domestic violence at
the hands of respondents. I would like to state here the admitted facts of
the case that, the applicant is wife of Late Mehul Shaha, who was son of
respondent No.1 and No.2. Respondent No.3 is daughter of respondent
No.1 and No.2 and respondent No.4 is husband of respondent No.3. It is
further admitted fact that, from the wedlock of Late Mehul, applicant has
one son by name Mahin, who is now taking education.
-- 4 of 10 --
~5~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
11. Applicant’s marriage with Mehul Shaha taken place on
27/05/2001, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. According to applicant since
beginning her mother-in-law i.e. respondent No.2 used to cause her
domestic violence in the nature of verbal abuse. It is specific contention of
applicant that, after sad demise of her husband the respondent No.1 has
taken entire property of Late Mehul Shaha. The respondents by installing
the CC TV cameras in the home disturbing the privacy of applicant and her
son. All the allegations of applicant have been denied by the respondents
and it is case of respondents that, the respondent No.1 by investing his
own money took policies in the name of his son i.e. Late Mehul.
12. Ld. Advocate Smt. Bhavna Jadhav for applicant submits that,
the respondent No.1 and No.2 are in-laws of applicant. The respondent
No.1, after sad demise of husband of applicant in order to deprive her
right over the property of her husband has taken away all the amount of
policies stands in the name of deceased husband and it is economic abuse.
Further, the applicant is also subjected verbal abuse at the hands of
respondents. Thus, the applicant is subjected the domestic violence at the
hands of respondents.
13. Per contra, it is the submission from the pleading of the
respondents that, after sad demise of Late Mehul no domestic relations
exists between applicant and respondents. The respondent No.1 and No.2
have filed the complaint before the Hon’ble Tribunal under the provisions
of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,
wherein the tribunal passed the order and restrained the applicant from
causing any kind of harassment to the respondents. Further, it is the
contention of respondents that, as they are old aged senior citizens and
applicant is their daughter-in-law therefore, the ratio laid down in Rajnish
V/s. Neha case is not at all applicable to them, therefore, it is not necessary
to respondent No.1 to file the affidavit regarding his Assets and Liabilities.
-- 5 of 10 --
~6~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
14. It is to be noted that, the documents placed on record it shows
that, both parties have filed NC against each other. Even the applicant has
filed the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court against the order
passed in the proceeding i.e. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
15. Now I would like to state here that, the applicant has filed the
NC against the respondents in police station-Santacruz for intentionally
insult at the hands of respondents. The incident taken place on
16/01/2023, the respondent No.3 has abused the applicant. Further, it is
evidenced from the pleading of both the parties that, at the instance of the
respondents the CC TV camera having installed in the home and as per the
case of respondents, they are old aged senior citizens and for safety and
security they have installed the CC TV cameras. Thus, the applicants and
respondents are residing under one roof and respondents have installed
without her permission the CC TV cameras, then it certainly would
disturbing the privacy of applicant and her son and it is one of the kind of
domestic violence.
16. It is to be noted that, as per case of applicant the respondent
No.1 has taken all the properties of late Mehul. Therefore, the applicant
and her son is facing the financial problems and it is the contention that,
the respondent No.1 is not providing maintenance , even not giving money
to applicant and her son. From the pleadings of the respondents in say it is
cleared that, the respondent No.1 was appointed, as nominee to the
policies in the name of Mehul and it is further contention that, after
demise of policy holder, the policies have been transferred in the name of
the respondent No.1 by default. It is to be noted that, despite of directions
the respondent No.1 failed to produce on record his affidavit of Assets and
Liabilities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajnish V/s. Neha in order to
came certainty in the financial claim of each party of the proceeding of the
-- 6 of 10 --
~7~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
Domestic Violence Act, directed to file the affidavits of Assets and
Liabilities. Therefore, merely saying that, the present matter is not at all
between the spouse, therefore, the respondent No.1 is not necessary to file
his affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, is not at all sustainable.
17. Therefore, by non producing the documents regarding Assets
and Liabilities and in respect of the property of late Mehul taken by them
give rise to raise the adverse inference against the respondent and
therefore, it appears that, the respondents after sad demise of Mehul
Shaha not providing the maintenance and by non giving any amount to to
the applicant causing economic abuse to applicant. Therefore, I hold that,
applicant prima-faciely proved that, she has been subjected the domestic
violence at the hands of respondents. Hence, I record my findings to the
point No.1, as in the affirmative.
As to point No.2 :-
18. This issue is in respect of the protection order. The applicant
has sought relief restraining the respondents from committing the
domestic violence against the respondents. It is to be noted that, while
answering to point No.1, I have concluded that, applicant has been
subjected the domestic violence at the hands of respondents. The applicant
is having apprehension in her mind that, the respondents will cause her
domestic violence in future also. Further, the respondent No.3 has abused
the applicant and intentionally insulted her. The NC report to that effect is
filed in police station-Santacruz by applicant. Further, without obtaining
permission of applicant, the respondents have installed the CC TV cameras
in the home and disturbing the privacy of applicant and her son.
19. Considering the allegations and counter allegations, I am of in
opinion that, in order to protect the interest of applicant order, for
restraining the respondents from committing any domestic violence can be
-- 7 of 10 --
~8~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
passed. Hence, I record my findings to point No.2 as in the partly
affirmative.
As to point No.3 :-
20. This issue is in respect of the monetary relief in the nature of
maintenance sought by the applicant against the respondent No.1. The
applicant is widowed daughter-in-law of the respondent No.1 and No.2. It
is alleged that, the respondent No.1 in order to deprive the rights of
applicant from the property of her husband siphoned all the amount
invested by husband of applicant. It is to be noted that, the respondents in
their reply contained that, respondent No.1 is nominee to the policies
stands in the name of deceased Mehul and by default after demise of
Mehul the said policies have been transferred in his name. The respondent
No.1 despite of direction by this court failed to file his affidavit of Assets
and Liabilities. The applicant has filed on record the copies of documents
showing port folio valuation summary of mutual funds stands in the name
of Late Mehul, wherein the respondent No.1 is shown, as nominee of Late
Mehul. Therefore, non filing his affidavit of Assets and Liabilities and non
filing of any document regarding the property of Late Mehul by the
respondent No.1, adverse inference may safely be raised against the
respondents and therefore, I hold that, the respondent No.1 has taken all
the properties of Late Mehul.
21. It is to be noted that, the applicant has no means of
maintenance and she is having responsibility of her son, who is taking
education. From the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities of applicant (Exh.-8)
it appears that, for education of her son application has taken hand loan
from her friends and she has no means of maintenance. Even it has been
mentioned in the said affidavit that, all her stridhan have been taken by
the respondents. Further, the respondent No.1 has not come with the
-- 8 of 10 --
~9~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
positive defence that, he has not inherited any property from his deceased
son.
22. Therefore, I would like to state here that, in view of section 19
of the The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 the responsibility
casted upon the father-in-law to maintain daughter-in-law if she is unable
to maintain herself and if she is unable to obtain maintenance from estate
of her husband. Therefore, in view of section 20 of the Domestic Violence
Act the monetary relief also include maintenance, as contemplated under
section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and maintenance in any other
law for the time being enforce. In present case, at hand the respondent
No.1 has taken property of Late Mehul and being daughter-in-law the
applicant is entitled for maintenance from the property of Late Mehul.
Hence, I hold that, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the maintenance in
the nature of monetary relief to the applicant.
23. The applicant is dance teacher and her son is taking education.
According to applicant the respondent No.1 is earning I 20,000/- per day,
but no such documents placed on record by the applicant. Now as per case
of applicant the respondent No.1 has taken the property of Late Mehul.
Therefore, considering the basic needs of the applicant the education
expenses of her son I am of opinion that, amount of I.20,000/- p.m. is
sufficient, as a maintenance to applicant from the respondent No.1.
Hence, I record my findings to the point No.3, as in affirmative.
As to point No.4 :-
24. It is to be noted that, the applicants and respondents are
residing under same roof and said house is matrimonial home of the
applicant and it is her shared household. The applicant has sought relief
that, the respondent be restrained from alienating the said house. It is to
be noted that, the applicant has not placed on record to show that, the
respondents are intending to transfer or alienate the said house. Further,
-- 9 of 10 --
~10~
C. C. NO. 199/DV/2022 ORDER BELOW APPLICATION (Exh.-2) & (Exh.2A)
the applicant is not at all shelterless, in such circumstances without any
proof regarding any overt act in relation to house property at the hands of
respondents, the applicant is not entitled to any relief to that effect. Hence,
I record my findings to the point No.4, as in negative and proceed to pass
following order.
ORDER
1 The applications (Exh.-2) and (Exh.-2A) are partly
allowed.
2 The respondents shall not cause any kind of domestic
violence to applicant till final decision of the proceeding.
3 The respondent No.1 shall pay R.20,000/- p.m. to
applicant, as a interim maintenance and maintenance,
education expenses of her son Mahin, since the date of
filing of the present application.
4 The respondent shall pay R.10,000/-, as the cost of the
present application to the applicant.
5 Copy of this order be given free of cost to both the
parties.
Mumbai.
Date : 23/07/2024.
SRD.
Sd/-
Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate,
(First Class) 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on :- 23/07/2024.
Transcribed on :- 23/07/2024.
Checked on :- 24/07/2024.
Signed on :- 24/07/2024.
SRD
-- 10 of 10 --