Interim Order 1

Pdf Text: 1 C.C. NO. 221/DV/2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
66TH COURT, ANDHERI MUMBAI
C.C. NO. 221/DV/2018
Mrs. Dimple Mahesh Bhambwani … Applicant
v/s.
Mr. Mahesh Gordhan Bhambwani
& Ors. … Respondent
ORDER BELOW EXH.2 APPLICATION FOR INTERIM
RELIEF FILED BY THE APPLICANT
Read application, say of the respondent, documents
on record. Heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
2. It reveals that applicant has made this application for
claiming the interim relief for maintenance and protection
order and relief with regard to her stridhan and maintenance
of her child.
3. The relations in between applicant and respondent
are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the child of the
parties residing with the applicant. It is not disputed fact that
she is school going girl and studied in reputed school. It is also
not disputed that the applicant is earning woman. It is also
not disputed fact that issuance of the notice and reply given by
the parties to each other. It is also not disputed that applicant
and respondent residing separately from each other. The only
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C.C. NO. 221/DV/2018
disputed fact that it is the applicant or the respondent are
responsible for the deserted.
4. In short it is the case of the applicant that she was
subjected domestic violence by the respondent taken away
her all stridhan, therefore compelled her to reside separately
from him alongwith her child.
5. The same has been denied by the respondent, come
with the case that it is applicant who is responsible for the
same. Further said that the ornaments which were belongs to
the applicant were mortgaged by him. The Ld. Counsel for
the applicant argued that the child of the parties required
maintenance, other expenses. The respondent has denied that
he compelled her to file this application.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the
things are not the same alleged by the applicant on the
contrary it is the respondent who left his previous job and now
accepted the new assignment and earned only Rs.30,000/ per
month. He argued that the applicant is self earning therefore,
question of directing respondent to pay maintenance does not
arise. Further argued that the applicant is receiving salary
more than lakhs and more than respondent. Mere there is
provision in law they do not compel the respondent to pay
maintenance to the applicant. Now the economic condition of
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C.C. NO. 221/DV/2018
respondent is poor and in these circumstances he is not liable
to pay any amount of the maintenance as his parents depends
upon him, pray to reject the same.
7. If considered the argument advanced by both the
parties and undisputed facts, section 106 of the Evidence Act
that the facts within the knowledge are required to be
disclosed by the parties is same are applicable to the applicant
and respondent. The applicant has disclosed that she is
earning to the extent, the same extent cannot be disclosed but
pray maintenance for child.
8. So far as respondent is concerned as argued by the
Ld. Counsel for the respondent that he left the job and joined
a new assignment in that regard nothing on record. There is
no hurdle to produce on record the documents as argued by
him. It appears that he suppressed material fact and not intent
to produce on record, no inference can be drawn against him.
9. So far as maintenance to the child with extent to
Rs.25,000/ is concerned, it is not disputed the child is studied
in reputed eduction institution and required school fees and
other expenses. Considering all these aspects, above
discussion and the fact that the applicant is also earning, I am
of view that the amount of Rs.20,000/ p.m. for the
maintenance to the child is sufficient.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C.C. NO. 221/DV/2018
10. So far as relief of protection order, if considered the
said dispute in between the parties, protection order
restraining the respondent from committing the domestic
violence against applicant in future is required to be issued.
11. So far as stridhan is concerned, it appears that the
same is mortgaged by respondent no.1, once mortgaged
always mortgaged. No prejudice will cause to the other side if
the said relief is not considered at this stage, it will consider
only after the fullfledge hearing.
12. Considering all above discussions the application is
required to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order:
O R D E R
1. The application is partly allowed.
2. Respondent no.1 do pay the amount of Rs.20,000/
per month towards maintenance for the child of
parties from the date of filing this application till the
disposal of main application.
3. Respondents are hereby restrained from committing
domestic violence against the applicant in future.
4. Copy of order be given to both the parties free of cost.
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C.C. NO. 221/DV/2018
5. Copy of this order be sent to P.I. of concern police
station.
Sd/
Mumbai (R.M. Nerlikar)
Date : 20/05/2019 Metropolitan Magistrate
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 5 of 5 --