Order 1

Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.148/DV/2018
Vibha Arunkumar Singh .... The petitioner
Vs
Arun Kumar V Singh & Ors. .... The respondent/s
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION U/SEC 23 OF THE PROTECTION
OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLANCE ACT, 2005
1. By way of present petition, she claimed interim relief/s. Heard
Ld counsels of both the parties.
2. Petitioner is the wife of respondent. According to the petitioner
lady, she got married with respondent No.1 on 01.12.2014. She is
issueless. However, she was subjected to various types of domestic
violence.
3. Respondent submitted reply and strongly opposed the
application.
4. It is admitted position that both the parties had got married. Said
marriage was performed on 01.12.2014. It is admitted position that
presently, petitioner wife is not staying with respondent husband, as she
is staying with her parents.
5. According to petitioner, she is not having earning source.
According to respondent, petitioner wife is a teacher and having
handsome income. However respondent husband is not having any
reliable evidence in that regard. Under such circumstances, in absence
of evidence, at this stage, I have to accept that she is not having income
and unable to maintain herself.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 C. C. NO.148/DV/2018
6. According to petitioner, the respondent husband is Assistant Film
Director. However according to respondent, he is a side actor(Dancer)
and gets very meager amount. It is true that petitioner lady could not
bring evidence regarding income of husband. However as per law it is
responsibility on the shoulders of husband to show own income. He has
not produced such evidence regarding his income. Therefore by way of
doing guess work, it can be presumed/assumed that he is having
reasonable income.
7. DV Act is a social legislation. Therefore, at this primary stage,
objections raised by the respondent cannot be considered in detail.
Those objections will have to be considered on merits, in main case.
8. It is the settled position of law that husband even if a beggar or
hermit or physically challenged person, the same cannot be a ground to
exonerate him from the responsibility of paying interim maintenance to
wife. Perusal of record it shows that respondent is an able and well
built person, this aspect cannot be ignored.
9. The petitioner lady submitted the application which is supported
by her affidavit, therefore, prima facie, it appears that petitioner wife
was subjected to domestic violence. So far as, the remaining prayers
are concerned, the same will have to be decided after recording
evidence at the time of final judgment.
10. On behalf of respondent while opposing application reliance is
placed on the case of Monokaran Vs M Devki
indiankanoon.org/doc/54216 & Sanjay Vs Khristina CRA No.226/12
dated 08.04.2008(HCBOM). However, facts and circumstances of the
present case are different. Those cases were U/Sec 125 of CrPC &
U/Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In one of the case, wife had
herself without reason cause deserted the husband. In the another case,
-- 2 of 4 --
3 C. C. NO.148/DV/2018
the wife was having private satellite TV job. However in the present
case, such situation does not exist. Therefore, in my humble view,
those rulings are not helping the respondent at this primary stage.
11. So far as, quantum of maintenance is concern, there are two
ends. One is to award the same from higher side, the other one is to
award it from the lower side. However, in my humble view, court has
to strike balance between the said both the ends and to award
justifiable/reasonable interim maintenance.
Considering peculiar facts, circumstances, alongwith liabilities &
evidence etc of the parties, petitioner wife is entitled to reasonable
interim maintenance. Therefore, in view of object of DV Act, I proceed
to pass following order in the interest of justice :
O R D E R
1. The petition stands allowed, partly.
2. The respondent husband shall pay total Rs.7,000/p.m
interim maintenance (including rent) to the Petitioner wife, from the
date of this petition.
3. Respondent is hereby restrained from causing any sort of
domestic violence to the petitioner lady in any manner.
4. Respondent shall not visit the place where petitioner wife is
staying presently.
5. Parties are at liberty to submit application for referrring
matter to the Mediation, for amicable settlement.
6. The above observations are preliminary in nature, the same
may vary during the final judgment, subject to proposed evidence.
7. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs vide
Sec.24 of the Act.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 C. C. NO.148/DV/2018
8. Petitioner wife is at liberty to show copy of this order
before the concern Protection Officer/PSO, as and when required.
Sd/
Dt : 07.05.2019. ( S.C. Pathare),
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
-- 4 of 4 --