Order 2

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C. C. No. 285/DV/2018
Indu Dilip Chaudhary … Applicant
V/s
Dilip Gova Chaudhary & Ors., … Respondents
ORDER PASSED BELOW EXH.NO.5
(Passed on 18/04/2024.)
The respondent has moved this application for having the
access to his minor daughter on the ground that the applicant filed this
false case against him and being natural guardian of baby child namely
Shreya, he is entitled to meet her on every Saturday and Sunday and to
attend school functions and parent meetings.
2. Per contra, the applicant who filed the application under
section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
against the respondent strongly opposed the application on the ground
that the respondent did not allow her and their child into the shared
household. According to her, the respondent ill treated her and refused
to keep and maintain her and their child, Shreya. It is further alleged
that the respondent is facing criminal trial and therefore, the custody of
the said minor child cannot be given to the respondent.
3. The application at hand is pending since 29/11/2018. But
since then the respondent did not take any pain to argue this matter.
Hence, having regard to the nature of the case and long pendency of
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
M.M.,44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
this application, it is required to be decided on merits.
4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note here that this Court
granted interim maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/ per
month to the applicant and Rs.5,000/ per month to her daughter. The
appeal filed by the respondent against this order was dismissed. The
record shows that the respondent has not paid a single pai towards the
due maintenance. In such circumstances, in my opinion when the
respondent himself is unable to pay the maintenance amount, then it
will not be safe to handover the custody of said child to the respondent.
5. Apart from this, the record shows that the respondent has
been convicted by the competent Court for having committed the
offence punishable under section 498 (A), 494, 323, 504 and 114 of
Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that any
visit of the respondent may be harmful to the interest of the said child.
Moreover, the applicant being biological mother is capable to look after
the said child. Thus considering all these facts and circumstances, I am
not inclined to allow this application. Hence, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
The application stands rejected.
Sd/
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 18.04.2024 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
M.M.,44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --