Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
Filed on : 01/02/2018
Registered on : 01/02/2018.
Decided on : 18/02/2020.
Duration : 02 Yrs. 00 M 17 D
Exh. : 82
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Shri Bhagawat T. Zirape)
C. C. No.32/DV/2018
Jeevanjyot Kaur Bansal
Age:- 41 years, Occ. : Housewife
R/o.:- Flat No. 1003/A, Vasukamal,
Opp. Hotel Gurukripa, Saki-Vihar Road,
Sakinaka, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 072. … Aggrieved person
V/s.
1. Kulvinder Singh Bansal
Age:- 44 years, Occ. : Businessman
having an address at Sophus Elevators Pvt.Ltd.,
Bansal Estate, Gala No.1,
682, Saki-Vihar Road,
Opp. Chandivali Petrol Pump,
Saki-Naka, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 072.
2. Gurdev Singh Bansal
Age:- 78years, Occ. : Businessman
3. Spinder Kaur Bansal
Age:- 78years, Occ. : Businessman
Both No. 2 and 3 residing at;
Bansal Niwas, Plot No. 120 & 121,
Sector 20, Opp. Iskcon Temple,
Kharghar – 410 210 and,
Flat No. 1003/A, Vasukamal,
Opp. Hotel Gurukripa, Saki-Vihar Road,
Sakinaka, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 072. … Respondents
-- 1 of 33 --
2 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
Appearances:
Ld. Advocate Shri Mujumdar for Aggrieved person.
Ld. Advocate Ms. Darshana Singh and Advocate Jitendra Tiwari for
Respondents.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 18/02/2020)
1. This petition is filed for various reliefs as per the provisions
of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. In nutshell, the case of aggrieved person is as under:
The respondent no.1 is the husband of the aggrieved per-
son. Their marriage was solemnized on 12/12/1997 at Gurukripa Hall,
Chembur as per rites and rituals of Sikh religion. Respondent no. 2 and
3 are the father and mother of respondent no.1 respectively. Parents of
aggrieved person expended a huge amount on her marriage. The ag-
grieved person is studied up to Textile Engineering from Mumbai Uni-
versity. Respondent no.1 is studied up to B.Com. Thereafter, he started
to look after his father's business along with him. Aggrieved person, her
three children, respondent no.1 and 3 are residing at Flat No. A/1003,
on 10th Floor, Vasukamal Building, Opposite Gurukripa Hotel, Sai-Vihar
Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 072 (Hereinafter referred to as the
Shared Household for the sake of brevity). Respondent no. 1 is the only
son of respondent no. 2 and 3. Respondent no.2 and 3 are having seven
daughters. They all are married. Respondent no. 2 usually resides at
the address given in the cause title and often visits the "Shared House-
hold" situated at Vasukamal Building where the aggrieved person re-
sides.
3. After marriage, Respondent no.3 took the aggrieved person
to various Gurudwara for the blessing to have a boy child. In February
1998, the aggrieved person was pregnant with triplets. Due to stress in
-- 2 of 33 --
3 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
the family, she had a miscarriage for which respondents blamed her. On
24/07/1998 the mother of an aggrieved person gifted her a diamond
ring on her birthday as a present. Due to which sister-in-law of ag-
grieved person got jealous and fought with her. Respondent no.3 and
sister-in-law of aggrieved person always caused mental torture to her.
She had taken sleeping pills due to depression. In-laws of aggrieved
person were often fighting for a trivial reason. Respondent no.1 would
often get upset and say
I will kill you to her.
4. In April or May 1998 aggrieved person was pregnant again
with twins. However, her husband hit her black and blue on a trivial is-
sue. She was confined to bed rest for quite some time. Ultimately, she
went to her parental home for her delivery. In September 1998 respon-
dent no.1 had hit the aggrieved person on her face. She got bruises on
her face. He dragged her out of the house and pushed her into the car
to leave her at her parents' home. When they reached her parents'
home, she did not come out of the car as there were bruises over her
face. Thereafter, respondent no.1 brought her back home. On
17/01/2000, after the twin sons were born, the respondent no. 1 ap-
proached to her. Thereafter, he took her back to her matrimonial home
by making false promises and assured that he will not repeat any vio-
lence against her.
5. Respondent no. 3 did not allow her to breastfeed the in-
fants but used to give bottled milk. Whenever she told the respondent
no.1 about the same, he used to either ignore her or scold her. Respon-
dent no.1 had beaten aggrieved person badly by pushing her on the
floor by kicking on her stomach. Respondent no. 3 had also hit the ag-
grieved person on her head. At that time, one of her sister-in-law
named Davinder (Rani) forcibly locked her inside the room. Thereafter,
respondent no.1 disappeared for 2-3 days by taking away three months
-- 3 of 33 --
4 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
old babies. The telephone lines were also broken by respondent no.2 so
that she could not contact her parents. Sister-in-law of aggrieved person
has threatened her that respondent no.1 would take the children to
Scotland and would not come back. On that count, the aggrieved per-
son kept on crying and begging for her babies. On the promises, not to
meet parents or contacting them on the telephone, respondent no.1
come back with the children.
6. In the year 2000, respondent no.1 formed a private limited
company namely Prima Steel Pvt. Ltd along with the aggrieved person.
Prima Steel Pvt. Ltd. is having its office at Bansal Estate, Sakinaka,
Mumbai. Said company is dealing in manufacturing glass and
panoramic cabins and lifts, installation and repair and maintenance ser-
vices of lifts. An aggrieved person was also made one of the Director of
the said company. However, respondent no.1 used to look after and
manages the affairs of the said company. Respondent no.1 used to take
the signatures of aggrieved person on documents and papers whenever
required. From the company's account he used to pay her monthly
amount which was initially of Rs.60,000/- but gradually increased to
Rs.83,000/-.
7. In the year 2002, respondent no.1 twisted the aggrieved
person's hand and finger. Therefore, she developed a fracture. He would
often throw stuff and articles on her head or hit her with the buckle side
of his leather belt. Despite the repeated report of the incident to respon-
dent no. 2 and 3 they had always taken the side of him. In the year
2003, respondents had purchased the Shared Household and shifted
most of the articles there. But, they did not allow her to stay there till
they had disposed of their home in Anmol Apartment in the year 2012.
The aggrieved person is residing continuously and uninterrupted in the
-- 4 of 33 --
5 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
said shared household until today. She is in possession, occupation and
use of the shared household till today.
8. On 02/03/2006 aggrieved person gave birth to a daughter
named Prabhmeet Kaur. Respondent no.2 and 3 were unhappy to see
her daughter as they again wanted the son. Various Babaji's visited and
often stayed for 2-3 weeks at their house. The aggrieved person took
their care without questioning. One morning aggrieved person running
a high fever. Therefore, she refused to cook. Then respondent no.1
dragged her and throw her out of the house. In the year 2006, respon-
dent no.1 had shifted his business to Rabale at R-267, TTC Industrial
Area, MIDC, Rabale, Navi Mumbai -400 701 and used to come home
late and most of the times skipped dinner at home. Gradually, he
stopped giving time to the family and thereby caused mental agony to
the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person was given a fixed amount
to run the household expenses.
9. In the year 2010 aggrieved person and respondent no.1
purchased two residential premises for about Rs.1.30 crores bearing flat
no. 1101 on 11th Floor in the name of the aggrieved person and Flat No.
1201 on 12th Floor in the name of the respondent no.1 both situated in
West Wind Building at Plot No.112, Sector 50, Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
However, they had not resided there. Ultimately at the instance of re-
spondents, the said property was disposed of and the consideration re-
ceived therefrom was utilized elsewhere. Flat No. 1101 exclusively be-
longs to her. The same was her stridhan. Respondent no.1 often used
foul languages with an aggrieved person.
10. In the year 2011, respondent no.1 had a major fight with
the aggrieved person. He pushed her so hard that she banged against
the wall and was bleeding profusely due to injury on her forehead and
-- 5 of 33 --
6 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
became unconscious. Thereafter, respondent no.1 took her to Mukund
Hospital where plastic surgery on her scar mark was done. He had
falsely reported to the hospital that the aggrieved person has fallen and
injured herself. In the same year, respondent no.1 had kicked in her
stomach whereby she got internal swelling and required medical treat-
ment. However, respondent no.1 had threatened her to give a false re-
port that her daughter had jumped on her stomach to cover the said act
and incident.
11. The salary or income received by the aggrieved person
from Prima Steel Pvt. Ltd. was utilised by the respondents in purchasing
flat No. B-103, on the 1st floor in Patel Paradise Building in Kharghar in
the joint names of the aggrieved person and respondent no.1. An ag-
grieved person learnt that respondent no.1 used to drop one of the fe-
male staff known as Sheetal Lade after the office hours at Dombivli.
Similarly, she also learnt that the respondent no.1 is showing utmost
concern in the said Sheetal Lade and he is going to buy a flat for her.
The intimacy between them has been increased. On 27/02/2012, re-
spondent no.1 informed that he is coming from Delhi/Amritsar Flight in
the afternoon. His relationship with Ms Sheetal Lade became apparent
when she went to received him at the Airport. But she found accompa-
nied by him falsely informing that she is not attending office due to
some theft at her place. Respondent no.1 was coming out from the IBIS
Hotel instead of the Airport. He gave an evasive reply. An aggrieved
person wants to left the house along with her children on that account.
However, respondent no.1 came behind and pulled the car keys and
threw it in the garden and dragged her back home. Respondents no. 2
and 3 did not react to the extramarital affairs of him.
12. On 25/05/2012, respondent no.1 hit aggrieved person
badly with mosquito bat, hanger and shoes and later left to his friend's
-- 6 of 33 --
7 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
place for house warming party along with the children. After coming
back he confessed and apologized for being rude and abusive. They
were living like strangers under the same roof. The aggrieved person
started undergoing depression and felt like ending herself. But, she
never wanted her children to suffer. She bore all the troubles thinking
that her children may not feel that they were nurtured by a single-par-
ent family. Despite knowing the extra-marital affair of respondent no.1,
she tried to adjust with the family for the interest of her children. On
07/10/2013, respondent no.1 hit the aggrieved person blue and black
and injured her eye on some trivial issue. She wanted to leave the
house. But her children’s semester exams were going on. So, she bore
with the injury silently.
13. In the year 2014, respondents had forced her to sign Gift
Deed for donating her Flat No.103 in Patel Paradise Building to one
Baba Narinder Singh of Nanded Trust. In return, respondent no. 2 and 3
had promised and assured her that respondent no. 3 will transfer the
flat no. 1003/A in Vasukamal CHS. Ltd. in the joint name of her and re-
spondent no.1. In the year 2015, respondent no.1 obtained her signa-
tures on some documents and thereby he had sold Prima Steels Pvt. Ltd.
for Rs.7.50 crores without her knowledge. He had utilized part of the
amount about Rs.1,70,00,000/- to purchase Flat No. 1002 in Vasukamal
CHS. Ltd. on the joint names of the aggrieved person and respondent
no.1. He informed that the remaining amount was invested in another
company known as Sophus Elevators Pvt. Ltd. But, shareholdings in the
said company was not given to the aggrieved person. Thus, respondent
no.1 systematically siphoned off her shares of consideration realized
from the sale of Prima Steels Pvt. Ltd. Thus, he misappropriated the in-
vestment of an aggrieved person. Due to regular suffering, mental and
physical torture and abuse, the aggrieved person underwent severe de-
-- 7 of 33 --
8 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
pression. She developed a suicidal tendency. She was constrained to
take medical treatment and counselling.
14. In September 2016, respondent no.1 has stopped communi-
cating with her. He shifted his bedroom and stopped giving money to
run the house or buy necessary stuff including fruits and vegetables. He
has given the said flat no. 1002 on rental basis and took away the de-
posit amount given by the Licensees. He directed the tenant to pay the
entire amount in his account. After the request of an aggrieved person
to the tenant, they started to pay the license fees/compensation equally.
Said flat no. 1002 is under some dispute or attachment by Indore High
Court of which aggrieved person was not aware of. Respondents want
to remove the aggrieved person from the shared household along with
her daughter. Even he had attempted to shift the minor daughter by
changing her school. He had even started to cut down the food and
other necessary expenses by making detail calculation of each item.
Day by day the conduct and attitude of respondent no.1 became worse.
He often caused humiliation, abused in front of her minor children and
in-laws.
15. On 13/11/2016 at about 10.00 p.m. respondent no.1, as
usual, was supposed to bring vegetables. But, he did not bring the same.
When the aggrieved person asked him about the same, he said that he
will bring it on the next day. Thereafter, she informed that vegetables
were necessary for children's tiffin in the next morning. She sends her
cook named Kashti to get 1 kg. potatoes from the market. Respondent
became very wild and told her to call Ms Kashti back. He said "who
earns in this house", " who gets all the money" so who will decide in this
house". He held her face and with one of his heal stood on her foot and
squashed her foot with force. The aggrieved person stood upon the din-
ing chair. He again put her against the wall and squashed her foot. He
-- 8 of 33 --
9 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
held her arms and pushed her on the sofa and thrashed her and ulti-
mately picked up the centre wooden table and banged it on her head.
He kept banging it forcibly on her head couple of times till the table
broke completely. Due to deep injury, the aggrieved person started to
bleed profusely on her head. Respondent no.1 said that he will kill her.
An aggrieved person called her sons to inform the police and call the
ambulance. Somehow, she managed to collect her bag and cell phone
and along with one of her sons Chhailender left to Seven Hills Hospital.
On the way, she informed about the incident to her brother and sister.
While reaching the hospital, she became unconscious and collapsed.
She was admitted as an indoor patient there. On the next day when she
gains consciousness, her statement was recorded by Mr Pawar attached
to Powai Police Station. She did not keep her head on the pillow due to
traumatic head injury. She was informed that respondent no.2 had
come to the hospital.
16. After discharge, she went to a shared household to look af-
ter her children. The wound on her head took more than a month to
heal. She had to take medicines for more than a year. Powai Police Sta-
tion carried out a preliminary investigation and registered FIR bearing
crime no. 524/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 326,
323, 504 of IPC against respondent no.1. Police arrested respondent
no.1 on the next day. Police have not levelled offence punishable under
section 498-A of IPC. Respondent no.1 was released on bail with cer-
tain terms and conditions.
17. After the incident, respondents were peaceful for a few
months. They have harassed and tortured her by persisting her to sign
some affidavit and papers prepared by their advocate so that criminal
case no. 308/PW/2017 could be settled or quashed. Respondent no.1
had stopped all his matrimonial obligations, contributions including
-- 9 of 33 --
10 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
household expenses, daughter's expenses and society's maintenance. He
stopped providing expenses for her daughter's school and tuition fees.
He threatened her to leave the shared household. Respondents have
caused economic violence and duress upon the aggrieved person. Re-
spondent no.1 through other respondents and their grown-up son's
pressurized her for withdrawal of the concerned FIR. They threatened
her to take the case back.
18. On 22/04/2017, respondent nos. 1 and 3 along with grown-
up sons have collected some of their belongings along with all the prop-
erty documents and her medical papers and left the said shared house-
hold to some undisclosed place. Thereafter, respondent no.1 through
his grown-up sons, insisting aggrieved person to withdraw the case by
sending what's app messages. Grown-up sons of aggrieved person have
approached her once and insisted for withdrawal of the case against
their father. Even the respondent no.2 threatened her that unless she
takes the case back she will have to suffer from dire consequences. Be-
hind the back of an aggrieved person, respondents had tried to dispose
of the shared household. Due to respondents act and conduct, minor
daughter of aggrieved person has developed the behavioural disorder.
She has gone under a deep depression.
19. The aggrieved person has particularly mentioned properties
belonging to the respondent in para no.7 of the petition. Respondent
no. 2 has held a large commercial structure known as "Bansal Estate"
consisting of several premises used by various companies on leave and
licence basis. They received monthly fees of Rs.10 to Rs.12 lakhs. Re-
spondent no.2 has leased-out the commercial premises at Kharghar. The
aggrieved person was having equal shares in the Prima Steel Pvt Ltd.
She was the Director of said company. Respondent no.1 along with one
Mr Menon had formed another Private Limited Company known as "So-
-- 10 of 33 --
11 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
phus Elevators Pvt. Ltd." out of the income of Prima Steel Private Lim-
ited. Sophus Elevators Private Ltd. is situated at Bansal Estate. In the
year 2015, Prima Steel Private Limited was sold off for about Rs.7.5
crores. Rs.1.17 crores were used in purchasing flat no. 1002-A at Va-
sukamal CHS. Ltd. jointly in the name of the aggrieved person and re-
spondent no.1. The remaining amount was taken away and misappro-
priated and or invested by respondent no.1 in the Sophus Elevators Pvt.
Ltd. company. Therefore, she is entitled to receive 50 lakhs per annum
from the said company along with joint shareholding. The business of
Sophus Elevators Pvt. Ltd. is spread over in 5 States and 11 Cities. The
annual turn over of the company is of Rs.20 to Rs.25 crores. Respondent
no.1 is earning around Rs.1 crore per annum as a Director's salary.
Therefore, an aggrieved person is entitled to receive Rs.5 lakhs per
month towards her shares from the income of said Sophus Elevators
Pvt. Ltd. company.
20. Respondent no.1 is maintaining joint HUF and individual in-
vestments in various bank accounts, mutual funds and policies and
property investment. All the financial decisions were taken exclusively
by him. Therefore, documents of investment in mutual funds, policies,
Fds and other bank documents are with him. An aggrieved person is
not aware of the exact details thereof. The act, conduct and attitude of
him were changed against her after disposing of the Prima Steel Pvt.
Ltd. He kept hiding the business facts and his extramarital relationship.
He started avoiding and neglecting her and stopped paying any amount
towards the maintenance of household expenses and even the expenses
of her daughter. The expenditure of her daughter towards food, cloth-
ing, education is presently coming to Rs. 1.05 lakhs per month. The ag-
grieved person is making a payment towards mediclaim, policies,
household expenses, society maintenance, electricity and other periph-
eral expenses for running and maintaining the shared household. For
-- 11 of 33 --
12 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
all these, maintenance amounts of Rs.1.95 lakhs per month are neces-
sary. She is mentally, physically and emotionally scarred and drained.
Her married life with respondent no.1 become a living hell.
21. The aggrieved person has reasons apprehended that re-
spondents may cause physical harm to her or her daughter by hook or
crook and throw out of the shared household. An aggrieved person is
not having any other place to reside. Her minor daughter is living un-
der constant fear of danger. An aggrieved person sends complaints to
various authorities of police and requested immediate action against the
respondent. She also filed N.C. complaint with Powai Police Station on
17/01/2018 regarding threats given by respondent for withdrawal of
criminal case no. 308/PW/2017 pending before this court. She also
filed a complaint regarding a violation of bail and bond with police. She
has also not received any protection from social Cell of Vakola Police
Station. The threats given by respondents are serious. They may trans-
fer their threats into action at any moment.
22. The aggrieved person is seeking custody of her minor
daughter and police protection from Powai Police Station. She is seeking
following reliefs against respondents viz:-
i) To restrain them from committing any act of domestic violence,
abuse, threats or physical harm and mental harassment to her,
ii) To restrain them from entering into, remaining upon and staying and
interfering and disturbing the aggrieved person and her daughter in
the peaceful use and occupation of the shared household,
iii) To restrain them from communicating in any form whatsoever with
her,
iv) To direct respondent no.1 to pay Rs.1.95 lakhs per month towards
the maintenance of household expenses, basic necessities, personal
expenses and medications etc. to her,
-- 12 of 33 --
13 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
v) To direct the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.1.05 lakhs per month to
wards school fees and maintenance of daughter Prabhmeet,
vi) To pay lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.12 crores and com
pensation towards emotional distress, mental agony, torture, vio
lence, cruelty to the tune of Rs. 2 crores to her,
vii) To pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.5 crores towards the higher
education and marriage expenses of the daughter prabhmeet,
viii) To restrain them from alienating the shared household or any other
movable or immovable property or creating any third party interest
in it,
ix) To direct them to return the amount of stridhan, savings, funds as
well as immovable properties of an aggrieved person to her,
x) To direct them to release their rights of the shared household in her
favour as promised,
xi) To direct them to execute a bond with two sureties of such amount
for preventing them from committing or repeating domestic
violence,
xii) To direct the respondent no.1 to disclose the bank account
statement held by him and duly audited balance sheet and state
ment of account of both companies of the last three years.
23. In pursuance of notices, respondents appeared in the mat-
ter. They filed their reply on record. Except the relationship with ag-
grieved person, they have denied all the allegations in the petition in
toto. In their reply, they have contended that the present petition is
filed by an aggrieved person by fabricating fictitious false story with fan-
ciful allegations against them. They gave equal opportunity to all mem-
bers of their family. An aggrieved person is one of the Director of M/s.
Prima Steel Pvt. Ltd. She is having direct control over the purchase,
bank transactions and all cash receipts and payment of joint company.
The aggrieved person herself caused the loss of the company by misap-
-- 13 of 33 --
14 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
propriation of the fund of the company to her relatives. She diverted
the funds of the company as per her whims and wishes to extort money
from respondents. she has made a concocted story with mala-fide in-
tention. She is an egoistic person. She has not come with the clean
hands before the court. She filed a present petition with a mala-fide in-
tention to misuse the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act. The main intention of her is to satisfy her insane whims
and wishes. The reliefs claimed are unreasonable. Respondent nos. 2
and 3 are staying separately at Kharghar. They also owned another flat
which is situated at Vasukamal Building, Opposite Gurukrupa Hotel,
Saki Vihar Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-72. Respondent
no.1 is residing there along with his children and aggrieved person. Ag-
grieved person and respondent no.1 jointly owned the flat bearing no.
1002-A, 10th floor, Vasukamal Building, Opposite Gurukrupa Hotel, Saki
Vihar Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 72. The aggrieved per-
son had rented out this flat and staying in the flat of respondent nos. 2
and 3. She is of short-tempered and having quarrelling nature. She
used to act violently on petty instances. She used to beat the respon-
dent no.1 and his children. Respondent no.1 and his children are com-
pletely fed-up with the behaviour of her. To avoid further complications,
respondent no.1 started staying in a rented place with his two sons
namely Chhailendar and Ekjot. Respondents belong to a respective
family. They are having a high culture and modern thinking. The mar-
riage of the aggrieved person and respondent no.1 was arranged mar-
riage. The family of respondent no.1 bore all the marriage expenses.
All the allegations in the petition are purely imaginary.
24. With love and affection, respondent no.3 and aggrieved
person along with her mother visited together to different Gurudwaras.
But the remaining story is a concocted one. Due to the poor economic
condition of the father and brother of the aggrieved person, they are
-- 14 of 33 --
15 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
trying to interfere and affect the decision of her matrimonial matter.
The aggrieved person wanted to abort the child. Her father wants to
make her career. Respondents never accepted an unreasonable and ille-
gal demand of them. Her father quarrelled with respondents on the
count of her pregnancy with a triplet. Respondents tried to convince for
continuing the delivery as per God's gift. But, the aggrieved person and
her father played the game with respondents and caused miscarriage
under the pretext of endangering to her life.
25. The incident about the diamond ring is false. The diamond
ring was given by respondent no.3 to her. Her mother taken an objec-
tion about the diamond ring and taunted to respondents by saying that
her daughter is graduate and they must respect her. The aggrieved per-
son used to sleep with a heavy dose of sleeping pills as advised by her
physician who was inducted by her father. She was not good with the
respondent no.1 and with his family members. She used to behave
whimsically. She insulted and abused respondent no.1 and his children
on various occasions for no reason. She used to quarrel with respon-
dent nos. 2 and 3 by visiting their residents frequently. She threatened
them that she will ruin them and compel them to come on the road and
cause their name to be published in National Newspaper on the front
page. Respondents have tolerated her from the last 20 years only for the
sake of their good reputation.
26. After the birth of twin sons, the family of respondents used
to visit the aggrieved person's parental house and brought the twins to
their home. She scolded the respondent no.1 for twins. She always ne-
glected for breastfeeding. She was always of the firm opinion that
breastfeeding will badly affect her capabilities. She always behaved cru-
elly with infants. She frequently visited her parental house leaving her
newborn infants at her matrimonial home. She always insulted respon-
-- 15 of 33 --
16 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
dent no. 1 in filthy language. She used to say that, " beware of me, I
wish that your genital organ will be chopped off by me". But, at every
time, respondents took the matter as sympathy towards the aggrieved
person. Because she was going under psychiatric treatment and her fa-
ther had confessed for the same after the completion of one month after
marriage. Due to ever-increasing fights and quarrels and the disturbing
atmosphere created by the aggrieved person in 2003, respondent nos. 2
and 3 had purchased separate flat to stay. This flat was purchased by
them from their savings. They started staying there while respondent
no.1 and aggrieved person stayed at Anmol Apartments till 2012.
27. In the year 2012, the respondent no.1 and aggrieved per-
son requested respondent no 2 and 3 that they need the placed to stay
in Mumbai. They requested them to let them stay in Vasukamal Build-
ing, Flat No. 1003. Respondent no. 2 and 3 agreed to let them stay and
they shifted to Kharghar. An aggrieved person is having the habit of
taking sleeping pills. She is also being treated for her giddiness and de-
pression. She would never get out of her bed till 11.00 am. Respon-
dent no.1 was leaving his house at 8.00 a.m. for his office. He has ap-
pointed a person for cooking and all other household work. Family
members of respondents have treated the aggrieved person with love
and affection. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 always stated in public that ag-
grieved person is their daughter and she is most talented in their family.
28. The new industrial unit was started at R-267, TTC, Indus-
trial Area, Rabale, New Mumbai-701. An aggrieved person is the Textile
Engineer. Respondent no.1 was fully depended upon her for the techni-
cal know-how and every aspect of the new industrial unit. She had all
the discretionary power relating to this industrial unit. But, she has
never cooperated with him. Respondents have seen 2-3 industrial unit
at Rabale, MIDC area. But, she has selected one sick unit which is situ-
-- 16 of 33 --
17 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
ated at the adjoining of her father's industrial unit. Respondent no.1 try-
ing to convince her that the present unit is having high cost compared
to other proposed industrial units and it is inconvenient for the trans-
port and all other services. She pressurized to select this industrial unit.
29. The aggrieved person and respondent no.1 had jointly es-
tablished the company named as Prima Steel Pvt. Ltd. Both were the
Directors of the said company. The aggrieved person was taking care of
purchases, human resources, bank transactions and all cash receipts and
payments of the said company. Respondent no.1 was taking care of the
sales. The aggrieved person has misappropriated the company's funds
as per her whims and wishes.
30. In June 2010 the flats were purchased as an investment as
the builder was a close relative of respondent no.1. Initially, the
amount was paid as a down payment. The loan was taken from IDBI
Bank for clearing the remaining balance amount. Since the aggrieved
person had started misappropriating the company's fund and thereafter
losses were building up, the salaries could not be paid in time from the
company. Thereafter, the loan account had to be closed by selling off the
flat. The flats were sold as distress sale and the amount was paid to
IDBI Bank to settle the loan and the balance if any was transferred to
the savings account of the aggrieved person. The amount received from
the sale of the flat is directly credited to the account of the aggrieved
person.
31. Respondent no.1 had offered to take the aggrieved person
to the IBIS Hotel to check the hotel records. But, she refused to come
and continued the torture with her false allegations. Respondents were
tried to explain to her that she should not spoil the family peace. The
aggrieved person remains in the drowsy condition for many hours be-
-- 17 of 33 --
18 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
cause of the excessive use of sleeping pills. Due to this condition, she
would sit in front of the TV for hours and neglect the household work.
She would not supervise the household work. The kids would leave in
the morning and come in the evening. She would not bother to see
what were their homework and other activities. The food was cooked
by the cook and other things were done by the servant. Hence, she ne-
glected her duties of mother, wife and daughter-in-law.
32. The father of the aggrieved person is a follower of the
Nanded Gurudwara and they do all their auspicious work with the
blessing of the Nanded Gurudwara. When Baba Narinder Singhji re-
quested aggrieved person's father to donate a big amount, he suggested
that they are not well to do and he should approach her daughter's in-
laws family for the same. He requested respondent nos. 2 and 3 to do-
nate Baba Narinder Singhji. During the discussion, the aggrieved per-
son offered Flat no.B-103, Patel Paradise as a gift to Baba Narinder
Singhji. Since the family of respondent no.1 and the aggrieved person
staying in that flat, respondent no.2 allowed them to stay in flat Vasuka-
mal A/1003 temporarily till they find alternate accommodation. Ag-
grieved person and her father offered the flat to Baba Narinder Singhji
came from Nanded as a Gift. This came as a shock to the respondent
no.1. But, since this was held among a huge crowd of the people he
kept quiet and accepted the decision of the aggrieved person and her fa-
ther. Later after some days, the flat was gifted to Baba Narinder Singhji
Trust by the aggrieved person and respondent no.1 to get blessings from
the Gurudwara. Thereafter, respondent no.1, aggrieved person and
their three children shifted Vasukamal A-1003 temporarily.
33. The aggrieved person had full access to the operation and
bank accounts of company Prima Steel Pvt. Ltd. and had exhausted all
the available funds. There was a bank loan of more than 2 crores with
-- 18 of 33 --
19 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
Corporation Bank and also creditors were amounting to more than 4 to
5 crores. To avoid becoming non-performing assets (NPA) and to avoid
legal action from the bank and creditors, it was decided that the proper-
ties of the company be sold. This was the joint decision of all Directors.
The purchasers were introduced by the aggrieved person. The initial-
ization of the deal was done by the aggrieved person. The amount was
used to pay off the bank loan and some creditors. The said flat was not
ok in the documentation and the same was pointed out by the legal ad-
visor of the respondents. But, the aggrieved person threatened to com-
mit suicide if the flat was not purchased. In October 2015 respondent
no.1 purchased said flat due to pressurizing of the aggrieved person and
her parents.
34. On 14/06/2016 there was 75th birthday of respondent
no.3. So, a small gathering at 1003 Vasukamal was arranged on
12/06/2016 followed by religious function and prayer meeting and lan-
gar. The aggrieved person was annoyed with the celebrations as she
wanted her birthday also to be celebrated in the same way. Respondent
no.1 assured her of the same. Respondent no.2 made small gold pen-
dants for all the daughters including the aggrieved person. But the pur-
chases were already made. This enraged the aggrieved person. She got
very angry and infuriated on knowing this. She started throwing
tantrums and started ill-treating the respondent no.3. She said to re-
spondent no.1 that "Your mother took your sisters for the jewellery and
she should ask food and medicines also from them and not me". Thus,
she stopped giving food and medicines to the mother of respondent
no.1. Respondent no.1 started taking care of his mother. The aggrieved
person stopped taking care of the house and neglected all her duties to-
wards the house, kids, husband and mother. The deposit amount was
used for making the flat repairs. The tenants by mistake deposited the
-- 19 of 33 --
20 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
whole amount into the account of respondent no.1. The same was cor-
rected from the next month.
35. Respondent no.1 had given the debit card of his PMC
Bank account in which the amount would come to the aggrieved person
as the amount was used for home expenses. The aggrieved person had
made the life of the respondent is very miserable. Unit of the factory
premises of Prime Steel was a big jolt to the respondent no.1. He
started working very hard. Working on Sundays and holidays to pay off
the standing dues of the Government and creditors. Still, the aggrieved
person kept troubling him with nasty demands. She made their daugh-
ter leave a good school in Juhu and join a school near Powai where the
fees were 10 times more than the old school. There was no such inci-
dent of cutting food. There was no such demand of the accounts of the
amount spent. The aggrieved person would finish off the money by 20th
of every month and then handover the balance expenses to be managed
over by the respondent no.1. There was no abuses or insults by respon-
dent no.1.
36. On 16/09/2016, respondent no.1 sent a message to the ag-
grieved person's brother and sister informing them about physic behav-
iour of her. When father and brother of her came at the house of re-
spondent no.1, the aggrieved person told them the false story of extra-
marital affairs of respondent no.1. Instead of giving understanding to
the aggrieved person, the father and brother of her started abusing and
threatening respondent no.1. Her brother threatened him to shoot him
with a pistol. The father of aggrieved person threatening him that he
will hang him. Respondent no.1 wanted to leave the residence due to
such insult and threat given by aggrieved person's family. But, he de-
cided to stay due to their kids. He wrote a message to her to stop the
torture.
-- 20 of 33 --
21 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
37. The aggrieved person had stopped doing household work
and other groceries. Reluctantly, respondent no.1 had to do the same.
On 13/11/2016, when respondent no.1 came home, he served himself
food and was sitting with his son and having food and watching TV in
the living room. The aggrieved person came out of the room and started
abusing in bad words to him by saying "no taking care of the house and
need veg and other things at home". When he checked, there was ev-
erything at home. On knowing that her lies have come in front of kids,
she came in a fit of anger and started threatening that she will destroy
her life and filed cases against him with the intention that he will rot in
jail and implicated in court and police cases. As respondent no.1 had
not given any response to her talks, she held him by his vest and started
pulling him down in the floor. She could not throw him down. She got
angrier and slapped him on his face. This loosened her grip on the vest
of the respondent no.1 and he shrugged himself and his turban. At this
time, she lost balance and fell on her head backwards on the centre ta-
ble which was behind her. Since the table was broken due to her
weight, there was glass on the table which already broken. The table
was shattered and the wood had some nails which hurt her. She got up
and saw blood coming out. Respondent no.1 told her to sit and he will
get an ice pack from the refrigerator. When he went inside and came
out with the ice his son told him that she was left with the other son to
the hospital. By that time, their daughter got up from sleep and came
out after hearing the noises and started crying after seeing the glasses
and wood and blood. They started picking-up the glasses so that no one
gets hurt. While leaving aggrieved person, she is calling the police and
the lawyer to file a criminal case against the respondent. The son who
went along with aggrieved person called home and informed the other
son that aggrieved person called her brothers and father and sister and
they were coming there and also calling the police.
-- 21 of 33 --
22 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
38. To avoid further arguments and other complications, the re -
spondent no.1 stayed at home with kids. He was later informed the re-
spondent no.2 about the incident. Respondent no.2 left the home at
Kharghar and reached the hospital where the aggrieved person was ad-
mitted. After completing all the formalities and also paid the deposit re-
quired for treatment of the aggrieved person, as respondent no.1 also
suffered an injury in the incident, he was treated at Hiranandani Hospi-
tal. Brother, sister and brother-in-law of aggrieved person had reached
the hospital and want to take revenge against respondent no.1. He is
not who was along with aggrieved person asked another son not to
come to the seven hills hospital where the aggrieved person was admit-
ted. Fearing rough behaviour and for avoiding further clashes, respon-
dent no.1 went back home with kids and spent the night there. All this
time, the aggrieved person was in her sense and had not lost conscious-
ness. The aggrieved person along with her brother, sister and brother-
in-law and with the advice of their lawyer filed FIR against respondent
no.1 on 14/11/2016 in the evening. Respondent no.1 was got him ar-
rested. He is a law-abiding person. On 22/11/2016 respondent no.1
was released on bail. He went to stay with his father at Kharghar.
39. Respondent no.1 was deeply let down by all the incident.
He was staying with his father as he was in a state of shock. He was
falsely implicated in police case by the aggrieved person. He also got
him jailed. No respectable person will be able to tolerate this kind of in-
cident in one's life. In the meantime, the aggrieved person was trying to
contact him to come and meet her. She said that she was feeling bad
about all that had happened. She realized her mistake. She started call-
ing him through a common friend. On one day, they fixed a meeting at
Vasukamal A-1003.
-- 22 of 33 --
23 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
40. All the property mentioned in para 7, 8 and 9 of the peti-
tion had been originally purchased by the respondent no.2. As such, re-
spondent no.1 has no control over the said property. Therefore, it is
false to say that the said property belongs to him. Sophus Elevator Pvt.
Ltd. does not belong to respondent no.1 only. Said company is being
formed with other members/directors. An aggrieved person is trying to
mislead the court by stating the details of property wrongly. All the
companies have to pay outstanding dues, VAT liabilities to the govern-
ment. All the companies are not running in profit. The companies have
to pay to their various creditors. Their outstanding dues which are run-
ning in lakhs of rupees. An aggrieved person is trying to show a rosy
picture and window dressing by suppressing true and correct material
facts. An aggrieved person has not shown the losses of the company in
the petition. She has not shown outstanding dues of the companies in
her petition to obtain favourable order in her favour. Respondents have
always taken care of the expenses from the date of marriage. They have
taken care of other extraordinary expenses done by the aggrieved per-
son which were not necessary for actual. They ignored all the unneces-
sary expense made by the aggrieved person without arguing. Despite
being financial crises, respondents took care of all the expenses of her.
The aggrieved person has made various allegations with the mala-fide
intention just to gain the sympathy of the court. Respondent no.1 had
taken care of expenses of the aggrieved person and their children.
41. The aggrieved person has become money minded and try-
ing to show all the monthly statement of the daughter's expenditure de-
spite the fact. An aggrieved person is trying to extort money under the
pretext of a daughter's expenditure to satisfy and fulfil her lavish life-
style and over-expenditure of herself. Respondent no.1 is paying the ex-
penditure of tuition fees of his daughter till today along with other ex-
penses of their kids. Since from the year 2005, the life of respondent
-- 23 of 33 --
24 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
no.1 become hell due to the behaviour of aggrieved person against him
and their children. In the year 2005, he and aggrieved person started a
factory at Rabale next to her brother's factory. The aggrieved person
used to meet her father and brother in the factory almost every day. She
started to pick up quarrels with him on petty things. She threatened
him for dire consequences. She used to siphon money from the com-
pany's account. Earlier she would withdraw small amounts and now
she started withdrawn huge amount without giving any reason. When
the respondent no.1 asked about the purpose of withdrawing money,
she used to abuse him. She used to give all money to her brother and
father. As such, she cheated the respondent no.1. As a result,
respondent no.1 used to suffer losses from the business due to shortage
of funds. She threatened to send him and his family to jail. Respondent
no.1 had given written complaint with the police about the same.
42. After losses in the business, respondent no.1 has to pay
creditors and government dues to the tune of Rs.7 crores. At present,
the aggrieved person has movable properties of worth Rs.55 lakhs, 1500
gms. Gold, diamond jewellery worth Rs.30 lakhs, 1 kg. Silver in her cus-
tody. She is getting income to the tune of Rs.32,500/- per month. She
is also in possession of Rs.20 lakhs after selling a scrap of the factory at
Rabale in the year 2015. Finally, respondents requested for rejection of
the petition with the heavy compensatory cost.
43. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and af-
ter going through the documents produced by parties on record, follow-
ing points do arise for my determination. I have recorded my findings
against each of them for the reasons stated below.
-- 24 of 33 --
25 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether an aggrieved person proves the
domestic violence against her at the in-
stances of respondents as contended?
Partly
affirmative.
2 Whether the aggrieved person has the right
to reside in a shared household?
Affirmative
3 Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to
residence order as prayed for?
Affirmative
4 Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to
a protection order against respondents as
prayed for?
Partly
affirmative.
5 Whether the aggrieved person and her
daughter are entitled to monthly mainte-
nance from respondent no.1 as claimed? If
yes, what would be the amount of mainte-
nance?
Affirmative.
6 Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to
lumpsum compensation to herself and her
daughter as claimed in the petition?
Affirmative.
7 What order? Petition is
partly
allowed.
R E A S O N S
44. To prove the case, the aggrieved person examined herself at
Exh.59 on oath. Witness Aparna Pawar Social Worker and witness
Kashti Dhami Cook are examined on behalf of the aggrieved person at
Exh.71 and Exh.73 respectively. Respondents have not adduced any
oral evidence on record. Heard both parties at length. Read the written
argument submitted by parties on record. I have also gone through the
authorities cited by the parties.
-- 25 of 33 --
26 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
As to point no.1
45. Ld. Advocate of aggrieved person vehemently argued that
respondent no.1 had assaulted on aggrieved person. Said fact is de-
posed by the aggrieved person in her testimony. Therefore, the ag-
grieved person has proved domestic violence at the hands of respondent
no.1. She has narrated in detail about the incident in the petition as
well as in her testimony. Medical documents and photographs available
on record support the case of the aggrieved person. Therefore, prima
facie, aggrieved person proved domestic violence against her at the in-
stances of respondents.
46. On the contrary, Ld. Advocate of respondents argued that
aggrieved person has not brought on record the medical evidence prop-
erly. So, documents produced by the aggrieved person cannot be con-
sidered. The aggrieved person has made various improvements in her
testimony. Therefore, she is not a believable witness to prove the do-
mestic violence at the hands of respondents. Therefore, Ld. Advocate of
respondents vehemently argued that respondents have not committed
any domestic violence against the aggrieved person.
47. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, I have
gone through the evidence available on record. Particularly, the testi-
mony of aggrieved persons shows that she reiterated all the contents of
the petition in her testimony. She specifically deposed about the inci-
dent dated 13/11/2016. Based on the said incident, crime is registered
with the concerned police station. Particularly, all cross-examination of
aggrieved person shows that the said fact is not specifically denied by
the respondents. Therefore, an aggrieved person has proved that she
sustained an injury to her head on dated 13/11/2016.
-- 26 of 33 --
27 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
48. In her testimony, an aggrieved person specifically contended
about the incident dated 13/11/2016 in detailed in her testimony. It is
not denied by respondents that the aggrieved person had taken treat-
ment at the concerned hospital after the incident. No evidence is
brought on record on behalf of respondents to disproved the incident
dated 13/11/2016 contended by the aggrieved person. An aggrieved
person specifically deposed that respondent no.1 had beaten her with
centre wooden table and banged it on her head. Therefore, she sus-
tained an injury to her head. Beating in such manner amounts to do-
mestic violence within the purview of Section 3 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act against the respondent no.1.
49. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
is enacted to give protection to women victim from domestic violence
and to prevent the curse of domestic violence in society. Incident dated
13/11/2016 prima facie shows the domestic violence at the hands of re-
spondent no.1. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the ag-
grieved person appears to be justifiable to the extent of respondent no.
1. As far as the other respondents are concerned, no cogent and reliable
evidence of domestic violence comes on record. So, minor domestic in-
cidences at the hands of respondent no. 2 & 3 can not be termed as do-
mestic violence against them. No proper explanation comes on record to
disprove the incident dated 13/11/2016. Even FIR bearing Crime No.
524/2016 is registered with Powai Police Station for the offence punish-
able under sections 326, 324, 504 of Indian Penal Code against respon-
dent no.1. Even the case bearing no. 308/PW/2017 is registered based
on said FIR. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of respon-
dents appears to be not justifiable. Therefore, I am of the humble opin-
ion that the aggrieved person has proved the domestic violence at the
hands of respondent no.1 only.
-- 27 of 33 --
28 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
50. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is proved that re-
spondent no.1 committed the act of domestic violence against the ag-
grieved person. No sufficient and cogent evidence appears to be avail-
able on record to prove the domestic violence against respondent no. 2
and 3. Therefore, the aggrieved person fails to prove domestic violence
against them. In this view of the matter, I answered the point no.1 as
partly affirmative.
As to Point No. 2 and 3
51. As both these points are interlinked, so, I have taken them
together here for my discussion. Relationship between the parties is not
in dispute. It is also not in dispute that aggrieved person is residing in a
shared household which is situated at flat no. 1003/A Vasukamal, Oppo-
site Gurukrupa Hotel, S.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 72.
The allegations and counter-allegations in respect of company affairs
cannot be considered in the present proceeding. Both the parties are at
liberty to proceed against each other in respect of company affairs if
they desired so. Shared household is not in the name aggrieved person.
An aggrieved person specifically contended that she is residing in the
shared household along with respondent no.1 and 3 and her children.
Prima facie, shared household appears to be the property of respon-
dents. Moreover, respondents are having other properties. Respondent
no.2 is having a residential property at Kharghar. Respondent no.1 is
also having another property for his residence. Therefore, I am of the
humble opinion that no prejudice will be caused to respondents if an
aggrieved person is permitted to reside in a shared household. There-
fore, an aggrieved person and her daughter are entitled to reside in the
shared household.
52. Being the wife of respondent no.1, the aggrieved person is
having every right to reside in a shared household as observed above.
-- 28 of 33 --
29 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
Respondent no.1 must maintain his wife and daughter with equal sta-
tus. Therefore, I am of the humble opinion that aggrieved person is en-
titled to residence order as per Section 19 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act and she is having the right to reside in a shared
household. Accordingly, I answered the point nos. 2 and 3 in the affir-
mative.
As to point no.4
53. The aggrieved person has filed a criminal complaint
against respondent no.1 with Powai Police Station. In view of the above
discussions, it is proved by the aggrieved person that respondent no. 1
has committed domestic violence against her. Therefore, it is necessary
to restrain him from committing a similar incident again. However, no
evidence showing the involvement of respondent no.2 and 3 in commit-
ting the domestic violence against aggrieved person comes on record.
Therefore, there is no need to pass a protection order against them.
Hence, I answered the point no.4 as is partly affirmative.
As to point no.5
54. Respondent no.1 has to maintain his wife and minor
daughter. Already interim order is passed by my learned predecessor in
the present matter granting monthly maintenance of Rs.75,000/- to mi-
nor daughter Prabhmeet and Rs.1.50 lakhs to aggrieved person as in-
terim maintenance. The daughter of the aggrieved person and respon-
dent no.1 namely Prabhmeet has every right to take education up to the
same status and standard as of the respondent no.1. She has the right
to live in the same status. Moreover, the aggrieved person has also the
right to live with the same dignity as like respondent no.1. Nothing
came on record showing the fixed income of an aggrieved person.
Therefore, I am of the humble opinion that the aggrieved person and
-- 29 of 33 --
30 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
her daughter Prabhmeet are entitled to the monthly maintenance from
respondent no.1.
55. The amount of monthly maintenance needs to be deter-
mined by taking into consideration the income of parties and depen-
dency on them. Two sons of aggrieved person and respondents are ma-
jor. They can earn their livelihood. The parents of respondent no.1 ap-
pear to be sufficiently capable to maintain themselves. Except the ag-
grieved person and her daughter, no any other person appears to be de-
pendent on respondent no.1.
56. Admittedly, respondent no.1 is a Director of Sophus Eleva-
tors Pvt. Ltd. He is having various properties situated in Sakinaka,
Kharghar and Lonavala. Therefore, it appears that the respondent is
earning sufficiently. To determine the monthly maintenance for the ag-
grieved person and her daughter, the income of respondent no.1 is
needed to be taken into consideration. The daughter of aggrieved per-
son is taking education in reputed school. The particulars of her expen-
ditures for education are submitted on record. As per the contentions of
the aggrieved person, an amount of Rs.1.05 lakhs are necessary to meet
the educational and other expenses of her daughter. The aggrieved
person has shown her monthly expenditure in a statement at Exh.K. Ag-
grieved person is claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.1.50 Lakhs for
her daughter and Rs.1.95 Lakhs for herself. Particularly, all documents
available on record shows that the family of respondent no.1 possessed
the property worth in crores. Moreover, respondent no.1 is earning as
Director of Sophus Elevators Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above discussion,
no one depends upon the respondent no. 1 except the aggrieved person
and her daughter. Therefore, I am of the considered view that an ag-
grieved person is entitled to maintenance to the tune of Rs.1 lakh per
month. So also, the daughter of aggrieved person namely Prabhmeet
-- 30 of 33 --
31 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
needs Rs.1 lakh per month for her educational and other expenses. The
amount of maintenance needs to be granted from the date of filing of
the original petition in the interest of justice. Hence, I answered point
no.5 in the affirmative.
As to point no.6
57. Admittedly, the aggrieved person has taken medical treat-
ment in Seven Hills Hospital. Photographs available on record shows
that she sustained an injury at the top of her head. Moreover, she com-
plained against the respondent no.1 with the concerned police station.
Therefore, she sustains mentally and physically agony. Therefore, she
needs to be compensated for this. So, I am of the humble opinion that
an amount of Rs.5 lakhs needs to be granted as compensation to her as
a lump sum compensation from respondent no.1. Because he is respon-
sible for the incident dated 13/11/2016. Hence, I answered point no.6
in the affirmative.
As to point no.7
58. Ld. Advocate of respondents invited my attention to the
ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v/s. Rajesh Jaiswal
reported in II(2000) DMC 170 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) and the
ratio laid down in the case of Mr. Prakash Kumar Singhee v/s. Ms.
Amrapali Singhee in Writ Petition No. 3553/2018 (Bombay High
Court). I have gone through these authorities. Facts in the instant case
and facts in cases cited supra are totally different. Therefore, I am of
humble opinion that ratios laid down in above authorities are not
helpful to respondents. Despite of sufficient opportunities, respondents
failed to adduce their evidence.
59. In view of my findings of point no. 1 to 6, aggrieved per-
son has proved the domestic violence at the hands of respondent no.1
-- 31 of 33 --
32 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
only. Therefore, she is entitled to a monthly maintenance order against
him only. She proved that she is residing in a shared household. There-
fore, she is entitled to residence order restraining respondents from dis-
possessing her from it. Thus, the present petition needs to be partly al-
lowed. Daughter Prabhmeet is a minor daughter. Therefore, the court
has to order maintenance to her till she attains the age of majority. Af-
ter the majority, she will be at liberty to proceed for her maintenance, if
she desired so.
60. An aggrieved person is seeking the order of custody of her
minor daughter. It is not in dispute that the minor daughter is residing
with the aggrieved person. Therefore, there is no need to pass any order
in respect of custody of the minor daughter. No immediate danger from
the respondent to aggrieved person seems in the near future. Therefore,
there is no need to direct Powai Police Station to proceed against re-
spondent no. 1. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the
view that there is no need to restrain respondents from entering into a
shared household. No evidence showing the intention of the respondent
to alienate shared household available on record. Therefore, respon-
dents cannot be restrained blanketly. Bank audited balance sheet cannot
be called on record.
61. Respondent no.1 has to maintain his wife and his minor
daughter Prabhmeet until she attains her majority. Copy of judgment
needs to be given free of cost to the parties as per section 24 of Protec-
tion of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Respondent no.1 needs to
be granted permission to deduct the interim amount if deposited by him
earlier from the granted monthly maintenance amount. In this view of
the matter, I proceed to pass the following order:
-- 32 of 33 --
33 C.C. NO. 32/DV/2018 Judgement.
O R D E R
1 The petition is partly allowed.
2 Respondent No.1 shall pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.1,00,000/- each in total Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs
Only) per month to the aggrieved person no.1 and her
daughter namely Prabhmeet from the date of filing of
application i.e. 01/02/2018.
3 Respondent no.1 shall pay monthly maintenance to his
daughter Prabhameet till she attains her age of majority
i.e. upto 18 years.
4 Respondents are hereby restrained from dispossessing
aggrieved person and her daughter from the shared
household viz. Flat No. 1003/A, Vasukamal, Opposite Ho-
tel Gurukrupa, Saki Vihar Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 72.
5 The respondent no.1 is hereby restrained from
committing domestic violence against the aggrieved
person and her daughter in future.
6 Respondent no.1 is entitled to deduct the interim amount
if deposited by him earlier from monthly maintenance
amount.
7 Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) to aggrieved person as compensation.
8 Copy of judgment be given to both parties free of costs.
Date:- 18/02/2020.
(Bhagawat T. Zirape)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66thCourt, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 33 of 33 --