Order 3

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 … Respondents
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WARRANT AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT NO.1
(Passed on 30.04.2026)
The applicant who had filed the petition under Section 12
of the Domestic Violence Act, has moved this application for issuance of
warrant against the respondent No.1 for recovery of the due
maintenance amount of Rs.28,20,000/- on the ground that she is in
need of maintenance allowance. According to her, the respondent no.1
deliberately avoided to make the payment as per the order passed by
this Court. Hence, she prayed to issue arrest warrant against the
respondent.
2. The respondent no.1 opposed the application on the
ground that he has made the payment of the amount of Rs.64,14,022/-
and therefore this application is not tenable.
3. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant, I
perused the record.
4. The learned advocate for the applicant filed the application
on 21.04.2026 wherein it has been stated that the respondent no.1 has
-- 1 of 3 --
2
not deposited or paid 50% of the arrears as per the order passed by the
Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Dindoshi on 25.09.2025 in Criminal Appeal
No.185 of 2024 within two months. However, the respondent no.1 has
submitted that he has paid the 50% arrears to the tune of
Rs.15,00,000/- as per the order passed by the Court of Sessions. Thus,
prima-facie it appears that there is controversy regarding the payment
of the said arrears amount. Therefore, unless and until this controversy
is resolved, it would not be justified to issue warrant against the
respondent no.1.
5. It is pertinent to note that prior to this application, the
applicant had filed the another application (Exhibit-34) for issuance of
warrant against the respondent no.1 for recovery of the maintenance
amount of Rs.24,40,000/-. By filing the reply to the application, the
respondent no.1 submitted that he paid sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the
applicant during the pendency of this case from the year of 2018 to
2024. After hearing both the parties, this Court passed the order on
04.09.2025 on that application (Exhibit-34) and thereby directed the
respondent no.1 to produce the authenticate record and the affidavit to
disclose the details of payments made by him to the applicant.
6. The respondent no.1 filed his affidavit on 16.09.2025 as
per the order dated 04.09.2025. After perusal of the said affidavit, it is
reflected that the respondent no.1 stated that he paid Rs.35,23,276/- to
the applicant and Rs.23,57,946/- to their son Pranit. But the
respondent no.1 has not given his specific date-wise details regarding
the payments made to the applicant. In other words, the affidavit filed
by the respondent no.1 appears to be cryptic and ambiguous.
Therefore, this Court is unable to come to the conclusion as to how
-- 2 of 3 --
3
much amount has been paid by the respondent no.1 to the applicant as
per the interim maintenance order passed by this Court on 04.07.2024.
In such scenario, by invoking the powers under section 28 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act.,I proceed to pass the following
order to meet the ends of the justice :-
ORDER
The applicant and the respondent no.1 shall file only date-wise
details of payments which might have been paid by the respondent
no.1 and which might have been received by the applicant during
the period of the interim maintenance order by this Court on
14.06.2018 to 30.04.2026 on affidavit.
Sd/-
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Date :- 30.04.2026 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --