Interim Order 1

Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.199/DV/2018
Sandhya Sunil Chavan
.... The petitioner
Vs
Sunil Vasudev Chavan .... The respondent
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION U/SEC 23 OF THE PROTECTION OF
WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
1. By way of present interim petition, the petitioner lady claimed
interim relief/s.
Heard Ld counsels of both the sides.
2. According to the petitioner lady, she got married with
respondent No.1 on 11.11.1985. However, she was subjected to various
types of domestic violence.
3. Respondent submitted reply. The relationship between the
parties is admitted. However, respondent strongly denied all other
adverse allegations. It is not disputed that both parties are having two
daughters, out of that one is married and other one is adult/major, who
is taking education at Delhi (As per one N.C she is doing job in Delhi).
4. According to petitioner she is interior Designer. She was
having good income in those days. According to her in 1991 she
purchased one BHK flat at Dahisar out of her income, but it was kept on
the name of respondent. She spent Rs.5,00,000/- for interior designing
for the same. She purchased one two wheeler and one four wheeler in
that period.
5. According to applicant, in 1998, they have purchased flat No.403
by selling previous flat. Said flat was purchased on joint names but she
has spent lions share of the price. She spent more than Rs.10Lacs for
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C. C. NO.199/DV/2018
interior decorations.
6. In the year 2002 she was suffering from one disease. Respondnet
refused moral and financial support to her. She spent Rs.1,50,000/- for
treatment. Respondent neglected her. In 2004 both parties jointly
purchased flat No.404 Thereafter respondent started quarrels etc with
her. One day he gave her injection and made unconscious for taking
her to hospital at Bhiwandi. He provided doubtful treatment to her.
7. In 2017 respondent filed case in Dindoshi city civil court against
her. He also filed false complaint in the police station and harrased her.
He also beat her.
8. According to applicant, respondent earns Rs.1,50,000/-per month
but refused applicant to give maintenance etc. Now days she is not
having any income. She has lodged FIR against him.
9. While opposing this application, respondent husband contended
that at Sahar road, both parties are having flat No.403 & 404 adjacent
to each others. According to respondent, in one flat he resides and in
another flat applicant lady resides. He denied seriously all other
adverse allegations.
10. Perusal of record and after considering submissions of the parties
it has transpired that petitioner lady while her heath was good was
earning good income. Respondent relied extract of Janata Sahakari
Bank dated 28.08.2015(very dark copy)wherein it is shown that
petitioner lady was having huge amount on her account in the 2015. It
means during her good health she was supporting/co-operating family.
However, after 2015 it is to be seen that petitioner lady is suffering from
disease, therefore, now at this stage it cannot be assumed or presumed
that she is having good income presently.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C. C. NO.199/DV/2018
11. So far as gifting share of anybody to anybody is concern said act
has to be voluntarily and without consideration. Therefore I am not
going to consider whether any adverse inference should be drawn
against any litigant for not gifting property to daughters.
12. Perusal of order passed below interim application in Civil Suit
No.2868/18 it shows that respondent husband had prayed for
injunction, but the same came to be rejected. From record it reveals
that both parties are having shares in supra flats.
13. So far as income of respondent husband is concerned in his own
non cognizable complaints he has shown his occupation as
service/retired/painter. Regarding income of respondent, petitioner
lady produced policy papers showing that his policy of Rs.12Lacs has
been taken. She has produced ITR of respondent for the period of 2017-
18 showing that his gross income was more than Rs.13Lacs yearly. It
means respondent is having reasonable income. It is to be noted that
petitioner lady has given birth to two daughters from respondent. She
has spent her huge life span with respondent husband. Under such
circumstances, when her health is not supporting her in that event it
becomes duty of the husband to support her by all means. It is true that
petitioner lady had completed diploma and during her good days she
was having good income. However, for that reason her right from her
husband cannot be flatly denied. However said fact can be considered
for not granting maintenance from higher side.
14. DV Act is a social legislation. It is expected by law that when any
person prefers to get married then prior to that he must ensure that he
shall be able to maintain the wife.
15. It is the settled position of law that husband even if a beggar or
hermit or physically challenged or aged person, the same cannot be a
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C. C. NO.199/DV/2018
ground to exonerate him from the responsibility of paying interim
maintenance etc to wife.
16. The petitioner lady submitted application which is supported by
her affidavit, therefore, Ex-facie, it appears that petitioner wife was
subjected to domestic violence. So far as, some remaining other prayers
are concerned, the same will have to be decided after recording
evidence at the time of final judgment.
17. It is the settled position of law that after marriage income of
parents or brother of the wife cannot be considered in such cases. After
marriage, responsibility to maintain wife shifts on the shoulders of
husband.
18. 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/expenses.
19. Considering peculiar facts, circumstances, along-with liabilities &
evidence etc of the parties, petitioner wife is entitled to reasonable
interim maintenance etc. 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 Rs.20,000/-pm interim
maintenance (inclusive of all) to the Petitioner wife from the date of
this application.
3. Respondent is hereby restrained from causing any sort of
domestic violence to the petitioner lady in any manner.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C. C. NO.199/DV/2018
4. Parties are at liberty to submit application for referrring
matter to the Mediation, for amicable settlement.
5. The above observations are preliminary in nature, the same
may vary during the final judgment, subject to proposed evidence.
6. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs vide
Sec.24 of the Act.
7. Vide Sec.28(2) of the DV Act, both parties shall not
(without permission of the court) transfer or create third party interest
in any manner on the properties standing on the name of the same (if
any), till final disposal of this matter.
8. Petitioner wife is at liberty to show copy of this order
before the concern Protection Officer/PSO, as and when required.
Sd/-
Dt : 15.11.2019. ( S.C. Pathare),
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
-- 5 of 5 --