Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: JUDGMENT … 1 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
Presented on : 16.08.2018
Registered on : 16.08.2018
Decided on : 04.02.2022
Duration : 03Y 05M 19D
CNR No. MHMM19 009440 2018
Exh. No.30
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE,
22ND COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED BY A. A. PANCHBHAI)
C.C.No. 239/DV/2018
Mrs. Roshani Sandeep Darde
Age : 28 years, occupation : Housewife
R/o.: C/O Gajanan Mhatre, 309,
A Wing, Ashtavinayak Coop. Housing Society
Ltd., Near Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7,
Chakala, MIDC, Andheri(East),
Mumbai 400 093.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) …... Applicant
Versus
1) Mr. Sandeep Ramchandra Darde
Age : Adult, occupation : Service
)
)
2) Mrs. Sumitra Ramchandra Darde
Age : Adult.
)
)
3) Mrs. Anu Hitesh Gohil
Age : Adult.
)
)
4) Mr. Hitesh Gohil
Age : Adult.
)
)
...2/
-- 1 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 2 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
.
5) Mrs. Bharti Ganesh Desai
Age : Adult.
)
)
All respondents r/o : Room No. A/06,
Sambhaji Nagar, Coop. Housing Society
Ltd., Akruti Road, Kandivali(East),
Mumbai400 101.
)
)
)
) …...
Respondents
APPEARANCE : Ld. Advocate Smt. Archana Suple for the Applicant
Ld. Advocate Mr. Rajeshkumar S. Patel for the
Respondents
: J U D G M E N T :
(Delivered on 04.02.2022)
1 This is a petition filed by applicant namely Mrs. Roshani
Sandeep Darde against her husband Mr. Sandeep Ramchandra Darde
and his relatives u/sec. 12, 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act. The facts giving rise to the cause of action
for this application in brief are as under :
2. The applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1
and other respondents are her inlaws. She is in domestic relationship
with the respondents. The respondent No.2 is providing tiffine services
and thereby earning Rs. 40,000/ per month. Respondent No.5 is
divorcee and residing together with her inlaws. According to the
applicant, she was doing all the household work and had not given any
chance of any complaint about her behaviour and attitude. However,
...3/
-- 2 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 3 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
the respondents started harassing her by not providing meals on time.
They used to abuse her and was forced to go to her parents' house for
delivery. She delivered male child on 23062016 and the expenses of
the delivery and hospitalization borne by her parents. According to the
applicant after her delivery on 21112017 the respondents assaulted
and drove her out of the matrimonial house. They also used to demand
Rs. 5,00,000/ for expansion of tiffine services business of respondent
No.2. Due to the assault and the acts of domestic violence committed
by the respondents, the applicant lodged report with M.I.D.C. Police
Station.
3. Therefore, applicant filed present petition and prayed for
directing the respondents to restrain themselves from causing any type
of harassment to the applicant. She also prayed for directing the
respondent No. 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/ per
month to the applicant and Rs. 7000/ per month to her son by name
Bhumit. She also prayed for directing the respondents to pay monthly
room rent or lumpsum amount for purchase of room in MIDC locality
for habitation of applicant and her son Bhumit. It is further prayed for
custody of son Bhumit be ordered to be remained with her forever. It is
further prayed for granting compensation, cost of application and such
other further reliefs.
4. After service of notice, the respondents appeared before
the court and respondents filed their reply vide Ex.10. In reply the
respondents denied all allegations levelled against them and the said
petition was filed to cause the harassment to them. They have admitted
...4/
-- 3 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 4 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
the relationship, however, denied the acts of domestic violence as
alleged by the applicant. According to the respondents, the application
as filed is not maintainable. The applicant has also not come with clean
hands before this Court and has suppressed material facts. According to
the respondents, the applicant never liked the respondent No.1 and
never provided any kind of love & affection towards him. She always
used to be busy on cell phone and never paid any heed to household
work. Further she used to quarrel with younger sister of respondent
No.1. According to the respondents, when the applicant was pregnant
she started forcing the respondent No.1 to live separately. According to
the respondents, as the respondent refused to reside separately the
applicant started quarreling with him and thereafter, left his company
on her own accord. According to the respondents in spite of issuance of
notice to the applicant through Advocate she didn't come back. It is
further submitted by them that, respondent No.1 is working with Secure
Guarantee Services Pvt. Ltd. and thereby earning Rs. 22,750/ only and
on the other hand the applicant herself is working lady and present
working with a company and thereby earning Rs. 15,000/ per month.
Hence, they prayed that application filed by applicant be dismissed.
5. In view of above rival facts following points arose for
my determination and I recorded my findings against each of them for
the reasons given below :
Sr. No. Points Findings
1] Does the applicant prove that she was
subjected to Domestic Violence by
In the affirmative.
...5/
-- 4 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 5 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
respondents as alleged ?
2] If yes, is she entitled for reliefs as
claimed ?
Partly allowed.
3] What order ? As per final order.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT No. 1:
6. Applicant has examined only one witness, whereas
respondents have not examined any witness. In fact they have not taken
crossexamination of the applicant and the matter had proceeded 'ex
parte' in that regards. The applicant examined herself as PW No.2 vide
Exh17. Heard applicant's side. Respondents failed to argue, hence
their argument was closed by order below Exh1 on 21.12.2021.
7. The applicant/aggrieved person has filed an affidavit vide
Exh No.17 in lieu of her examinationinchief and testified according to
all the pleadings of her plaint. She has admitted in evidence the
documents vide list at Exh Nos. 16. The copy of N.C. dated
21.11.2017 vide Exh No. 20, copy of N.C. dated 24.07.2017 vide Exh
No.21 and third N.C. dated 07.07.2018 vide Exh No.22, written
complaint dated 30.06.2018 to Mahila Dakshata Committee which was
admitted in evidence at Exh No.23, written complaint to MIDC police
station dated 22.07.2017 at Exh No. 24, written complaint to
Commissioner of Police and other authorities dated 18.07.2018 at Exh
No.25, legal notice sent by respondent No.1 dated 27.07.2018 at Exh
No.26 and reply by applicant to the legal notice at Exh No.27. Matter
proceeded without crossexamination of PW No.1 as per order below
...6/
-- 5 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 6 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
Exh28. Respondent's evidence was closed by order below Exh29.
8. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, what
crops up for evaluation and assessment is that, there is no question of
exaggeration/embellishment or contradiction in the version of applicant
and there is no challenge made by the respondents, as no cross
examination was taken. In this particular case, it has been categorically
deposed by the applicant that during her pregnancy respondents did not
provide her proper nutritious food and forced her to do all the
household work because of which her health deteriorated. That they
also did not provide her medical treatment, moreover, even the
respondent No.1 used to abuse and assault her mercilessly, without any
reason during pregnancy. That respondent No.2 used to force her to
cook for her tiffin service and they caused harassment to her. That,
when she reported the matter to her parents, she was driven out from
her matrimonial house in November 2016 by the respondent No.1.
That she was abused in filthy language on 21.11.2017, the copy of N.C.
at Exh20 is the evidence in that regards and similar are the other N.C.'s
vide Exh Nos. 21 & 22 regarding the incidents dated 24.07.2017 and
07.07.2018. That she was abused and assaulted.
9. From the other documentary evidence, specifically the
complaint made by the applicant against respondents to the various
authorities including MIDC Police Station, Commissioner of Police, etc.
like written complaint to MIDC, at Exh24 and to Commissioner of
Police at Exh25, clearly demonstrate the evidentiary proof, which is
unrebutted on record. The reply given by her to respondents' notice at
...7/
-- 6 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 7 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
Exh27 corroborates all the facts cited by her, in her complaint and the
affidavit of evidence at Exh17. She had categorically deposed that the
respondent has failed to maintain her. She do not have any source of
income for herself and for her minor son. All these facts were not
controverted by the defence. They have failed to rebut this evidence as
they failed to crossexamine her. Hence, the evidence of the applicant is
inspiring confidence to this Court considering it as truthful and reliable.
10 Comprehending all the evidence, it can be safely held that
as regards the domestic violence, the version of applicant is trustworthy.
The said facts deposed by her stand unrebutted and hence, applicant
has been successful in proving her case by standard of preponderance of
probability. The applicant succeeded in proving that she was
subjected to domestic violence of respondents as alleged and hence, I
determined point No. 1 in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :
11. The applicant has sought for a monthly maintenance of
Rs.15,000/ per month to herself and Rs.7,000/ per month to her son
Bhumit. She had deposed that the respondent No.1 is earning an
amount of Rs.50,000/ per month and such fact has not been rebutted
by the defence. However, she has not filed any income proof of the
respondent No.1 and neither she has filed any affidavit of Assets &
Liabilities in support of her case. Be that as it may, there is a reply of the
respondent on record and he admitted that he was working with Secure
Guarantee Services Pvt. Ltd. and thereby earning Rs. 22,750/ per
month, which has not been rebutted by the applicant by filing any
...8/
-- 7 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 8 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
rejoinder to this reply, but it has not been proved by the respondent by
preponderance of probability, otherwise that she is working lady earing
Rs.15,000/ per month. Hence, the maintenance sought by her is partly
justified for the amount claimed for maintenance, but it would not be
justified to grant her such a huge amount of Rs.15,000/ and Rs.7,000/
specifically, when she has failed to prove the quantum of income earned
by the respondent No.1
12. The applicant has also sought for house rent of Rs.5,000/
per month. It is also not justified considering the standard of living of
the parties and therefore it would be justified if she is granted a
monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/ for her and Rs.2,000/ for her son
Bhumit and Rs.2,000/ per month as house rent to secure the same
level of alternate accommodation for her as enjoyed by her in the
shared household. The applicant has also sought relief of permanent
custody of her child. However, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide
it, albeit it can grant such custody only temporarily as per Section 21 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Hence, prayer in
this regards is rejected. In view of the fact that applicant has proved
her case by preponderance of probability, cost of Rs.1,000/ be granted
to the applicant, of this proceeding. Considering the evidence on record
and law as discussed above, the following final order is hereby passed
as under:
ORDER
(i) The petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The respondents are hereby directed to restrain themselves for
...9/
-- 8 of 9 --
JUDGMENT … 9 … C.C.No.239/DV/2018
causing any type of harassment to applicant through them or
anybody claiming through them.
(iii) The respondent No. 1 Mr. Sandeep Ramchandra Darde is
also hereby directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/
p.m. to the applicant viz. Mrs. Roshani Sandeep Darde and
Rs.2,000/ p.m. to their son namely Bhumit, from the date of
filing of this application.
(iv) It is hereby directed to the respondent No.1 to pay
Rs. 2,000/ p.m. as house rent to the applicant to secure the
same level of alternate accommodation as enjoyed by her in the
shared household from the date of filing of this application.
(v) Respondents are also hereby directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/
to the applicant of this application.
Date : 04.02.2022
(A.A.Panchbhai)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
*csj
Dictated on : 04.02.2022
Transcribed on : 04.02.2022
Signed on : 08.02.2022
.../
-- 9 of 9 --