Order 2

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.89/DV/2018
Punam Harira Daulatramani … Applicant
V/s
Harira Chandru Daulatramani … Respondent
ORDER BELOW EXH.NO.34
(Passed on 04/09/2025)
The applicant who is aggrieved person and in whose favour
the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month towards
the maintenance has been granted by this Court on 04/07/2024 under
section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
moved this application for issuance of warrant for recovery of
maintenance amount of Rs.24,40,000/- against the respondent on the
ground that the respondent committed breach of consent terms filed
before this Court on 21/10/2024.
2. According to the applicant, she gave her consent to the
respondent to sell the joint ownership flat as per the said consent terms.
But after completion of the said transaction, the respondent did not
comply the terms and condition as contemplated in the consent terms
and therefore, she filed this application for recovery of the due
maintenance amount.
3. Per contra, the respondent opposed the application on the
ground that he already paid sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the applicant
during the pendency of this case from the year of 2018 to 2024.
According to him, he has filed the appeal against the order regarding
interim maintenance before the Hon’ble Session Court, Dinoshi and the
matter is subjudice. He further submitted that the applicant has
-- 1 of 3 --
2
suppressed the material facts regarding her income source and
therefore, this application is not maintainable.
4. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
5. It is admitted position that this Court allowed the
application for interim maintenance allowance filed by the applicant on
04/07/2024 and thereby directed the respondent to pay sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of filing the application i.e. from
14/06/2018.
6. In fact, the respondent has submitted that he paid amount
of Rs.25,00,000/- to the applicant during the pendency of this case. Per
contra, the record shows that this fact is denied by the applicant. In
such circumstances, unless and until the controversy regarding the
payment of Rs.25,00,000/- is resolved, it would not be just and proper
to issue the warrant for recovery of the maintenance amount of
Rs.24,40,000/-.
7. So far as the allegations regarding the breach of consent
terms dated 21/10/2024 are concerned, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is at liberty to take proper legal steps in this regard. In other
words, unless and until the said consent terms dated 21/10/2024 filed
on record is proved in accordance with law, it would not be justified to
place reliance on the facts made therein. Thus, this Court is of humble
opinion that only on the basis of non-compliance of the consent terms
dated 21/10/2024, the warrant for recovery of the maintenance cannot
allowed at this juncture.
8. Apart from this, according to the respondent, he has
challenged the order dated 04/07/2024 passed by this Court and the
matter is subjudice. In such circumstances, in my opinion, unless and
until the applicant furnishes the proper account of receipt of the
-- 2 of 3 --
3
amount and the respondent submits the relevant documents regarding
the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- as mentioned in the reply, it will not be
just and proper to allow this application at this stage. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1 The application for issuance of warrant against the respondent is
hereby rejected.
2 Both the applicant and respondent are hereby directed to produce
the authenticate record of payment and receipt of the interim
maintenance allowance during the period of 14/06/2018 to
04/09/2025. They are further directed to file their respective
affidavits on record to support their claim in this regard.
Sd/-
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Date :- 04/09/2025 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --