Order 1

Order Details: Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. No. 82/DV/2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
RAILWAY MOBILE COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI
C. C. No. 82/DV/2018
Reham Najeeb Shaikh ... Applicant
(alias Reham Rashid Khan)
V/s.
Najeeb Azhar Mohammed Shaikh + 6 ... Respondents
ORDER BELOW EXH. 01
1. In her main application Exh. 1 the applicant has prayed for
interim reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women From
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act').
2. In brief, it is the case of the applicant that she got married
with respondent no. 1 on 14/04/2017 as per Muslim rites at
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. It was an arrangemarriage. Respondent
no. 2 is fatherinlaw and respondent no. 3 is motherinlaw of the
applicant. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are elder brothers of respondent
no. 1. Respondent no. 6 is wife of respondent no. 4 and respondent no.
7 is wife of respondent no. 5. Within 15 days of the marriage
respondent no. 1 started taunting the applicant regarding her weight
and educational qualification. He used to tease the applicant by saying
that she has not brought any gifts from the house of her parents for
him. Respondent no. 1 was forcing the applicant to ask favours from
her father for his job in abroad. When applicant's father refused to help
respondent no. 1, his attitude started changing towards the applicant.
Respondent no. 1 started shouting at the applicant in front of his
family. Respondent no. 4 was staring at the applicant badly.
Respondent no. 7 used to instigate other family members against the
applicant. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were in habit to abuse the
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C. C. No. 82/DV/2018
applicant in filthy language. On 28/05/2017 respondent no. 1 tried to
hit the applicant. After 2 – 3 days the respondents sent the applicant to
her parents place. Thereafter, the applicant informed her parents about
the behaviour of the respondents. Thereafter, at two times meeting
was held between both sides for resolving the issues. In the meetings
accusation and arguments were showered by both the sides. Lastly, on
06/08/2017 the applicant went back to her matrimonial house for
giving second chance to respondent no. 1. However, the respondents
continued to illtreat the applicant. On 12/09/2017 after pregnancy
test the applicant came to know that she is pregnant. During her
pregnancy also the respondents misbehaved with the applicant. On
many occasions respondent no. 1 quarreled with the applicant. One
day respondent no. 3 called mother of the applicant and she put blame
on the applicant and asked her to take back the applicant to her
parental place. Due to which applicant's mother took her to her
parental place. On 05/11/2017 the respondents came to parental place
of the applicant and started to argue with her parents and to blame her.
On 09/11/2017 the applicant approached the concern police station
and dispatched her written complaint, but police authority did not
taken any action against the respondents. Hence, this application.
3. Respondent no. 1 resisted the application by filing his reply
(Exh. 05). Admittedly, the applicant is wife of respondent no. 1 and
they are blessed with one daughter who is born during pendency of
present proceeding. Respondent no. 1 has denied all the adverse
allegations made against the respondents. It is the case of respondent
no. 1 that the applicant has not disclosed true facts before this court.
The applicant come from a rich family as a result of which she could
never settled in a lower middle class family of the respondents. The
respondents tried their best to keep the applicant happy, but her sole
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C. C. No. 82/DV/2018
intention was to separate respondent no. 1 from other respondents. By
filing present application the applicant is blackmailing respondent no. 1
to fulfill her unreasonable demand of separate residence. The
respondents never illtreated the applicant. The applicant herself left
her matrimonial home on 10/10/2017 out of her own will. Respondent
no. 1 was and he is ready to cohabit with the applicant. The allegations
of the applicant are baseless. The applicant is gainfully employed. The
applicant is not entitled for any interim reliefs. Hence, the application
may be rejected.
4. I have gone through the record. The case is at initial stage.
Both parties have made several allegations against each other. Those
allegations may be inquired into at the time of trial. The allegations of
the applicant is supported her affidavit. The written complaint dated
09/11/2017 given by the applicant to police also supports her
allegations. At this stage I do not find any reason to disbelieve the case
of the applicant. Respondent no. 1 also failed to show any convincing
reason for making false allegations against him by the applicant. I do
not find any reason for the applicant to leave her matrimonial home
during her pregnancy, except the illtreatment given to her by
respondent no. 1. The allegations made by the applicant primafacie
shows that the applicant is victim of domestic violence. Therefore, the
applicant is certainly entitled for appropriate and necessary interim
reliefs under the provisions the Act.
5. The applicant has prayed for passing protection order
against the respondents. Admittedly, since last more than 2 years the
applicant is staying at the house of her parents. So now at this stage
there is no question of committing domestic violence by the
respondents against the applicant. The applicant has also not specified
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C. C. No. 82/DV/2018
the nature of protection order sought by her. Therefore, I do not find it
fit to pass general and vague protection order. Hence, I am not inclined
to pass any protection order.
6. The applicant has prayed that respondent no. 1 be directed
to pay Rs. 25,000/ per month to her towards interim maintenance. On
the point of maintenance in his reply respondent no. 1 submitted that
his meager salary is of Rs. 45,000/ per month. His parents and brother
are depend on him. The responsibility of total household and medical
expenses of Rs. 44,100/ per month is on him. The applicant is taking
private tuitions. The applicant is also calligrapher and webdesigner
and she does this work by way of freelance. The applicant was and is
earning more than Rs. 1 Lac per month. Further, the applicant herself
has left the matrimonial home of her own. Therefore, the applicant is
not entitled for any maintenance. Respondent no. 1 is ready to pay
maintenance for his daughter who is of two months age.
7. At the time of argument the learned advocate of
respondent no. 1 submitted that respondent no. 1 lost his job in
September – 2019 and since then he is unemployed. I have considered
the submissions of both the sides. As stated above, the record prima
facie shows that the applicant is victim of domestic violence. Except
bare words of respondent no. 1 there is nothing on record to show that
at present the applicant is working and earning. It is also not in dispute
now the applicant is having one daughter of few months. In the
circumstances, it is the legal and moral duty of respondent no. 1 to give
reasonable amount to the applicant for the maintenance of the
applicant and her daughter. In his reply respondent no. 1 admitted that
he is working and his salary is Rs. 45,000/ per month. Only at the
time of argument the learned advocate of respondent no. 1 argued that
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C. C. No. 82/DV/2018
now respondent no. 1 has lost his job. However, respondent no. 1
neither amended his pleading nor filed any affidavit in support of his
submission that he has lost his job. Further, respondent no. 1 is of
young age and well bodied person. Therefore, I find no substance in
the submission of the learned advocate of respondent no. 1 that
respondent no. 1 is unemployed and he is unable to pay any amount to
the applicant. Therefore, considering the income of respondent no. 1
disclosed by him and considering the status of the parties which
appears from the record, it would be proper to grant interim
maintenance of Rs. 7,000/ per month to the applicant for the
maintenance of the applicant and her daughter from the date of the
application till disposal of the case.
8. The applicant has also prayed for the relief of alternate
accommodation and also for the compensation. There is no specific
pleading of the applicant in respect of grant of said reliefs at interim
stage. Hence, I am of the view that said reliefs are not considerable at
this stage and it may be considered at the time of final hearing on the
basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. In the result, I pass the
following order.
ORDER
1. Respondent no. 1 shall pay Rs. 7,000/ per month to the
applicant for interim maintenance of the applicant and her daughter
from the date of the application till disposal of the case.
2. Costs in the cause.
(Imran R. Marchiya)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court,
Date : 11/02/2020 Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 5 --