Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: CNR No. MHMM18-0014373-2022 C. C. NO. 218/DV/2022
Karuna V/s. Dhananjay
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.13
The applicants have filed the present applications under
section 23 of the Protection of The Woman from the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (here-in-after referred as, 'the PWDV Act') for interim protection
order and interim maintenance and for interim compensation against the
respondent.
2. According to the applicant No.1, the respondent is her
husband and their marriage took place on 09/01/1998 and applicant No.2
Sishiv and No.3 Shivani are their children. Now applicant No.2 and No.3
are with applicant No.1. The marriage of applicant No.1 and the
respondent is love marriage and intercast marriage. After marriage
applicant No.1 and respondent for initial period stayed at Indore.
Thereafter, they started to reside at Mumbai. Till 2018, their marriage life
was smooth. The respondent is political leader. Since 2018 there was
sudden change in the behaviour of respondent and he started to neglect
the applicants.
3. It is further contended that, the respondent was MLA and he
was having responsibility of political party therefore, he always stay out of
Bombay. The applicant came across that the respondent has performed
second marriage with Rajashree Munde. When applicant No.1 asked about
the same respondent replied that, in order to maintain reputation in the
society and under the pressure of his family members he performed
second marriage with Rajashree. He further assured the applicant that, he
will always give her the status of first wife. Therefore, and due to the
prestigious status of respondent the applicant never complained about his
second marriage.
-- 1 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~2~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
4. It is further contended that, when the applicant No.1 insisted
the respondent to reside with him at his native place, but the respondent
told her that his marriage with her being love marriage is not admitted to
his family members and if the applicant’s came to his native place then his
political carrier will be destroyed and asked her not to stay at village and
threatened her. It is further contended that, the respondent has compelled
to sister of applicant No.1 and physically harassed her sister. Even the
respondent arranged to beat the applicant No.1 and her mother through
his followers.
5. In the November 2020 when applicant proceeded towards
native place of respondent at that time, the respondent threatened her and
warned her that, she shall not come to his native place. On that night the
helpmate of the respondent have sexually abused the applicant No.1.
Thus, according to the applicant No.1 she has been physically and
emotionally abused by the respondent. The respondent has denied
conjugal rights of applicant No.1. She is subjected the domestic violence at
the hands of respondent. Therefore, she constrained to file present
proceeding. Lastly, applicants prayed that, the respondent be restrained
from causing any kind of domestic violence to applicant No.1 and also
sought relief of interim maintenance of I.5,00,000/- p.m. to each applicant
and interim compensation of I.25,00,00,000/- form respondent.
6. The respondent has filed his reply to main petition at
(Exh.-10) and resisted the application by filing his reply at (Exh.-17) to
present petition. The respondent denied that, he ever married with the
applicant No.1. According to the respondent as there is no domestic
relationship between him and applicants the present proceeding is not
tenable. The respondent denied that, he attempted to kill the applicant
No.1. The particulars regarding date, time and place of alleged incident of
-- 2 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~3~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
pelting stones over the car of applicant No.1 has not been given by the
applicant No.1. the applicant No. 1 has suppressed the fact that, she is
Director of three companies and having business of import export of
clothes. She is also insurance agent and doing business of renting the
premises on commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that, she she has no
means of maintenance. The applicant No.1 is political person and
spending large amount of money towards her political goals, which shows
that, she has lot of money and owns source of income
7. It is further contended that, the respondent has filed the Civil
Suit Bearing No.7716/2020 against the applicant No.1 in the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed the
order and restrained the applicant from making statement in public
against respondent. However, the applicant No.1 is violating the said
order. According to the respondent the present petition is filed by
applicant No.1 to counter blast to the civil suit filed by the respondent.
Thus, according to respondent the applicant is not at all the aggrieved
persons, therefore, she cannot claimed any relief in main petition as well
as in present petition against the respondent. Lastly, the respondent
prayed that, the applicant be rejected with cost.
8. The applicants in support of application filed on record the
Copies of her Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Copies of various complaints made
to police, Copy of N.C. report, Copies of affidavits submitted by
respondent to election commission while contesting the elections, Copy of
Vasiyatnama dated 18/07/2017, Copy of acknowledgment letter, Copies
of Photographs and also she filed her affidavit of Asset and Liabilities,
dated 27/12/2022.
9. The respondent has filed on record the his affidavit of Assets
and Liabilities, at (Exh.-22). He also relied on the documents, which are
-- 3 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~4~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
alongwith list (Exh.-11), wherein Copies of affidavit submitted to election
commission, order passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Suit,
Copies of data obtained from website of Ministry of Affairs, Copies of
documents obtained under R.T.I. Act.
10. I have heard elaborated arguments of Ld. Advocate Shri Kolhe
for applicants and Ld. Advocate Shri Singh for respondent. I have also
considered the written notes of argument filed by the applicant at
(Exh.-23).
11. 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 :-
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Does the applicants proved
prima-
faciely that, applicant No.1 has
been subjected the domestic
violence at the hands of the
respondents ?
Partly Yes.
2. Is applicant No.1 entitled for relief
of protection order, as prayed? Partly Yes.
3. Are applicants entitled for relief of
maintenance, as prayed? Partly Yes.
4. What order? Application is
partly allowed.
REASONS
-- 4 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~5~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
As to point No.1 :-
12. In order to get relief under section 23 of Domestic Violence
Act the applicants has to prove that, the applicant No.1 has been subjected
domestic violence at the hands of respondent. It is to be noted that, the
respondent denied that, he has domestic relations with applicant No.1 and
she is the aggrieved person, as per the provisions of Domestic Violence
Act. It is to be noted that, previously the respondent has raised the said
issue by filing the application (Exh.-14) contending that, there is no
domestic relations between him and applicant No.1 and prayed for
rejection of application at threshold. The said application came to be
rejected by passing order dated 29/04/2024.
13. Now whether there are domestic relationship between the
applicant No.1 and respondent, I would like to state here that, the
respondent has executed one Vasiyatnama dated 18/07/2017, which is
notarized document, where in the respondent admitted that, applicant
No.1 is his first wife and Rajashree is his second wife. Further, one
acknowledgment letter ¼Lohd`rh i=½ which is alleged to be executed by
the respondent admitted that, he married with the applicant No.1 on
09/01/1998. Further, from the affidavit submitted by the respondent to
election commission dated 23/10/2024 for the election of Parli legislative
constituency, the respondent has shown the applicant No.2 and No.3 are
depend upon him.
14. Thus, from the above said documents it appears that, the
respondent married with applicant No.1. Now whether the said marriage
is legal or not it can be decided on the evidence adduced by both the
parties. But from the above said documents the respondent admitted that,
the applicant is wife and respondent No.2 and No.3 are their children.
-- 5 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~6~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
Therefore,
prima-faciely it appears that, there are domestic relations
between applicant No.1 and respondent.
15. Now whether the applicant No.1 is subjected the domestic
violence or not, is issue before me. The respondent denied all the
allegations made by the applicant against him by saying that, no
particulars of alleged incident of domestic violence has been given. It is to
be noted that, in the affidavit submitted by respondent to election
commission he has mentioned names of applicant No.2 and No.3 as
dependent, but in present proceeding he denied any relations with
applicant No.1 and in present proceeding contended that, he never
married with applicant. It appears that, the respondent is denying conjugal
rights of applicant No.1, which is also amounts to the domestic violence.
Since 2020 the applicant and respondent as per the affidavit of Assets and
Liabilities of applicant started reside separately.
16. Therefore, it appears that, the relations between them are
strained and inference can be drawn that, as the respondent is denying
marital status of applicant No.1, she is emotionally abused by the
respondent which amounts to the domestic violence. Therefore, I hold
that, applicant No.1
prima-faciely proved that, she has been subjected
domestic violence at the hands of respondent. Hence, I record my finding
to the point No.1 as in the partly affirmative.
As to point No.2 :-
17. This issue is in respect of the protection order. The applicant
has sought relief restraining the respondent from committing the domestic
violence. It is to be noted that, the applicant alleged that, the respondent
denying her marital status and also did not allow her to came at native
place at Kothali, Tal. Parali, Dist. Beed and when the applicant No.1 tried
to came at the native place it is her allegation she has been restrained by
the followers of the respondent and respondent who also pelted stones on
-- 6 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~7~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
the car of applicant No.1. The respondent denied the contention of
applicant No.1.
18. The applicant has filed on record the copy of N.C. report dated
24/08/2023, that at Beed three unknown persons have pelted the stones
on the car of applicant, the photographs also supported to the version of
applicant. The said incident is taken place on 24/08/2023, of which the
applicant has made reference in her petition (Exh.-13). While answering
to point No.1, I have concluded that, applicant No.1 has been subjected
the domestic violence at the hands of respondent. The applicant is having
apprehension in her mind that, the respondent will cause her domestic
violence in future also. Considering the allegations and counter
allegations, I am of in opinion that, in order to protect the interest of
applicant No.1 order for restraining the respondent from committing any
domestic violence in future can be passed. Hence, I record my finding to
point No.2 as in the affirmative.
As to point No.3 :-
19. This issue is in respect of the monetary relief in the nature of
maintenance. While concluding point No.1 I hold that, applicant No.1 is
subjected domestic violence at the hands of respondent. According to the
applicant No.1 she has no sufficient source of income and she is having
responsibilities of applicant No.2 and No.3. The respondent neglected and
refused to maintain them though he has sufficient source of income. Per
contra, the respondent come with the case that, the applicant No.1 is
business woman and she is having sufficient means of income. Therefore,
applicants are not entitled to any monetary relief.
20. Ld. Advocate Shri Kolhe for applicant submits that, the
respondent is Minister of Government of Maharashtra. He is having lot of
landed as well as house properties. Even he has invested huge money in
various schemes and getting income. Per contra, though applicant No.1 is
-- 7 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~8~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
business woman she is having right to lead life as per lifestyle of the
respondent. The respondent lifestyle is luxurious. Further the applicant
No.2 and No.3 are taking eduction. But, the respondent has not providing
any means of maintenance therefore, Considering income and luxurious
lifestyle of respondent maintenance of I.5,00,000/- p.m. to each applicant
be granted.
21. Per contra Ld. Advocate Shri Singh for respondent submits
that, the applicant No.1 is business woman, she is Director of three
companies, even she is having business of export import of cloths, but she
has suppressed her source of income from those business and filed the
present application. Hence, applicants are not entitled to any relief as
sought. He further submits that, the applicant No.2 and No.3 now
attended majority of their age, therefore, they are not entitled to
maintenance.
22. I have gone through the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed
by the both parties and also gone through the affidavits submitted by them
to election commission, while contesting the election. It is to be noted
that, whether applicant No.1 has suppressed the material facts regarding
her income or not is matter of evidence. therefore, at this stage it cannot
be concluded that, the applicant No.1 suppressed the material facts.
23. From the affidavit of assets and liabilities of applicant it
appears that, she is also having income but considering lifestyle of
respondent whether the said income said to be sufficient to her and her
children? It is to be noted that, from the affidavits of assets and liabilities
of respondent it shows that, strong income than the applicant No.1.
Further, though the respondent No.1 has mentioned in affidavit of election
commission that, applicant No.2 and No.3 are depend upon him, but what
-- 8 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~9~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
kind of maintenance provided by him to them is not clarified by the
respondent.
24. It is to be noted that, at the hearing of this application it has
been raised issue of attending majority of applicant No.2 and No.3 and
their entitlement of maintenance from respondent. The present
proceeding came to be filed in the year 2020, wherein the applicant No.1
has shown age of applicant No.2 Sishiv was 16 years and age of applicant
No.3 Shivani was 15 years. Now by passage of time they have attended
their age of majority. Being son applicant No.2 by name Sishiv after
attending the majority is not entitled to maintenance from respondent.
But applicant No.3 Shivani is daughter and as per law of maintenance she
is entitled to maintenance from respondent until her marriage.
25. Considering basic needs of applicant No.1 and No.3 their
income the lifestyle of respondent I am of opinion that, they are entitled to
for maintenance in the nature of monetary relief, as provided under
section 20 of Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, I am of opinion that, the
maintenance of I.1,25,000/- p.m. to applicant No.1 and maintenance
amou t of I.75,000/- p.m. to applicant No.3 from respondent is sufficient
as a interim maintenance. Hence, I record my finding to the point No.3 as
in the partly affirmative and proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1 The application is partly allowed.
2 The respondent shall not cause any kind of domestic
violence to applicant No.1 till final decision of the
proceeding.
-- 9 of 10 --
C. C. NO.218/DV/2022 ~10~ ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH-13
3 The respondent shall pay I.1,25,000/- p.m. to applicant
No.1 and I. 75,000/- p.m. to applicant No.3, as a interim
maintenance, since the date of filing of the present
application.
4 The respondent shall pay R.25,000/- 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 : 04/02/2025.
SRD.
Sd/-
(A. B. Jadhav)
Judicial Magistrate, (First Class),
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on :- 04/02/2025.
Transcribed on :- 04/02/2025.
Checked on :- 04/02/2025.
Signed on :- 04/02/2025.
SRD
-- 10 of 10 --