Order 7

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.285/DV/2018
Indu Dilip Chaudhary … Applicant
V/s
Dilip Gova Chaudhary & Ors., … Respondents
ORDER ON EXH.NO.23
(Passed on 18/04/2024)
The applicant in whose favour the interim maintenance amount
of Rs.20,000/ per month was granted on 15/05/2019 by this Court, has
moved the application for awarding consecutive imprisonment sentence
against the respondent for nonpayment of maintenance on the ground that
the respondent was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498
(A), 494, 323, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and he is absconded.
According to the applicant, the respondent did not pay the maintenance
amount and therefore, the respondent is liable to undergo the consecutive
imprisonment.
2. Per contra, the respondent opposed the application on the
ground that this application is not tenable because there is no imprisonment
order passed by this Court. According to the respondent, the applicant filed
this application to harrass the respondent and it is baseless.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I perused
the record.
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
-- 1 of 2 --
2
applicant and Rs.5,000/ per month to her daughter. The appeal filed by the
respondent against this order was dismissed.
5. Having gone through the record it appears that the applicant
has not initiated any recovery proceeding against the respondent in respect of
the due maintenance amount. Moreover, she has not approached the
concerned police station for lodging FIR against the respondent for breach of
any protection order. In such circumstances, in my opinion, nonpayment of
maintenance amount does not come within the purview of Section 31 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In other words, the powers
under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can
be invoked if there is breach of protection order. Hence, this application is
devoid of merit.
6. Apart from this the applicant has not produced any document on
record to show that the respondent was convicted by the concerned Court.
Moreover, she has stated that the respondent filed the revision application
against the order of the conviction. Thus, at this juncture it can be inferred
that the respondent is not undergoing any imprisonment. Moreover, the
respondent has not been punished by any Court for violation of the interim
maintenance order passed by this Court. Thus, this application is vague and it
is not tenable in the eye of law. In such circumstances, the question of
consecutive imprisonment does not arise. Resultantly, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
The application stands rejected.
Sd/
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 18/04/2024 44 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --