Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order below Ex-1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
Mrs. Shaleen Harsh Sachdev
D/o. Mr. Sunil Kanayalal Multani ….Applicant.
V/s.
Mr. Harsh Vinod Sachdev & 3 others … Respondents.
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
(Passed on 20.12.2021)
Through this application, the applicant Mrs. Shaleen Harsh
Sachdev has applied for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of
Rs.2 Lakhs per month from respondent no.1.
2. According to applicant, her marriage was solemnized
with respondent no.1 on 30.06.2018 at Grand Hyatt, Goa as per
Hindu rites and rituals. It is the first and foremost grievance of
applicant, that the respondent no. 1 is a habitual drug addict and
he was heavily using all sorts of banned narcotics substances. The
respondent no.1 used to torture the applicant mentally and
physically under the influence of drug and her modesty was
outraged by respondent no. 1 every time. In addition to respondent
no. 1, her father in law, the respondent no. 2 also started
demanding dowry and respondent nos. 3 and 4 were also involved
in these activities. The applicant was removed from the
matrimonial house and her dowry articles of worth Rs.80 Lakhs are
still in possession of respondents. The applicant has requested for
-- 1 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:2:
approval of application. In support of this application the applicant
has filed various photographs, whatsapp chats, photograph of
dowry articles and affidavit of applicant.
3. The respondents appeared and contested this
application by filing reply at Exh.5. They have categorically denied
the allegations setforth by applicant classifying it to be false and
baseless. It is their contention that applicant was nicely treated by
them and was frequently visiting her parental home. It is their
grievance that applicant also lodged FIR against them for various
offences. According to respondents there is no material to show
existence of domestic violence with applicant therefore the
application filed by applicant deserves to be rejected.
4. In support of their contention, the respondents have
filed copy of whatsapp chats, copy of bill of Grand Hyatt at Goa,
affidavit of respondent nos.1 to 4, copy of FIR, copy of order dated
24.11.2018 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, copy of order
dated 20.03.2019 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, precipe
of submission of DD, invoice of payment, bookings of various
events, travel itinerary of honeymoon trip, flight tickets, copy of
hand written notes and acknowledgment of jewellery and gift
articles.
5. I have heard the learned advocates for applicant and
respondents at length. I have perused the pleadings of parties and
-- 2 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:3:
documents filed on record. I have also gone through the written
notes of arguments filed by both sides. I have given thoughtful
consideration to the submissions advanced by both sides orally as
well as in written arguments. I have also perused all material on
record very minutely and carefully.
6. From the perusal of application, affidavit of applicant
and reply of respondents, the marriage of the applicant with
respondent no.1 is undisputed fact. Noticeably both the parties
have made rival allegations against each other, however the
allegations of applicant appears to be at higher pedestal as she has
lodged the complaint against respondents and cognizance of said
complaint was taken by police authority. Significantly there must
be something for which the applicant has been deprived of
matrimonial home and residing separately.
7. In support of her claim, the applicant has placed her
reliance on the case of Mr. Prakash Kumar Singhee V/s. Ms.
Amrapali Singhee in which Hon’ble Bombay High Court has
elaborated the object of PWDV Act. Per contra the respondents
have placed their reliance on the case of Sushilkumar Sharma V/s.
Union of India vide Writ Petition no. 141/2005 in which Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed that the Magistrate has to consider
domestic incident report before passing any order on the
application. The next respondents placed their reliance on the case
-- 3 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:4:
of Rakeshkumar V/s. Union of India reported in MANU/PH/
0011/2021 in which Hon’ble Punjab and Hariyana High Court has
observed that unless certificate under section 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act is annexed no electronic record is having evidentiary
value. The next the respondents placed their reliance on the case of
Ambalal Enterprises Ltd V/s. K. S. Infraspace Ltd reported in
MANU/SC/ 0003/2020 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
whatsapp chats are virtual verbal communications and are subject
matter of evidence. The next the respondents placed their reliance
on the case of Vijayanand Naik V/s. Vishranti Naik reported in
MANU/MH/0389/2019 in which Hon’ble Bombay High Court has
held that act of domestic violence is a sine quo non for grant of any
relief. The next the respondents have placed their reliance on the
case of Amit Khanna V/s. Priyanka Khanna and ors reported in
MANU/DE/2180/2010, in which Hon’ble Delhi High Court has
held that the income of husband has to be considered while
granting maintenance. The next the respondents placed their
reliance of Mangesh Bhoir V/s. Leena Bhoir reported in
MANU/MH/3432/2015, in which Hon’ble Bombay High Court has
held that on the ground of cruelty the husband is entitled for
divorce. Finally the respondents placed their reliance on the case
of Sanjay Bharadwaj V/s. The State reported in MANU/DE/
2129/2010 in which Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that
granting maintenance without any proof of income of husband is
not proper.
-- 4 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:5:
8. With the greatest respects to the Hon’ble Apex Court,
Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
I state that the factual position of case in hand and relied cases is
altogether different. No doubt the judicial ratios are guidelines for
every court but the case of applicant as well as respondents is of
such nature that the relied judicial ratios are not directly and
substantially applicable to the case. Ultimately the judicial ratios
are not helpful to the applicant as well as respondents.
9. Coming to the allegations setforth by the applicant, it
is apparent that applicant has approached this court with specific
allegations of domestic violence. She has quoted various instances
of domestic violence. The respondents have counter attacked the
applicant’s case, however the claim of applicant appears to be at
higher pedestal in purview of surrounding circumstances. The
applicant has lodged FIR against respondents, who have been
approved with bail with certain conditions. The applicant is
residing separately and is agitating for her rights and injustices by
respondents. As such on the basis of ingredients of the application,
documents on record and facts and circumstances of the case, the
applicant appears to be victim of domestic violence and she can be
classified as an aggrieved person. Accordingly, respondents are
directed not to commit any kind of domestic violence with
applicant in future.
-- 5 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:6:
10. Coming towards the interim relief claimed by applicant,
she has demanded Rs.2 Lakhs per month from the respondent
no. 1. To ascertain the appropriate quantum, I have directed both
the parties to furnish affidavits of assets and liabilities in purview
of directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Rajnish V/s. Neha vide criminal appeal no. 730/2020.
Accordingly the applicant has filed her affidavit of assets and
liabilities at Exh.11. According to her she is associate manager and
is earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-per month. She has given the
details of expenditure and quoted the requirement of Rs.2,05,000/-
from respondent no.1. She has also furnished her income tax
returns. She has contended that respondent no. 1 is earning Rs.54
Lakhs per annum. In support of her affidavit of assets and liabilities
she has annexed income tax returns and bank statements.
11. Refuting the claim of applicant, the respondent has
filed his affidavit of assets and liabilities and quoted his income to
the tune of Rs.11,000/- per month. He has contended that
applicant is earning handsome amount and living a luxurious life
and spending huge amount. He has filed various documents on
record to justify and support own contentions. He has annexed
income tax returns from year 2018 to 2020-2021 alongwith bank
details.
-- 6 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:7:
12. Comparing the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by
both parties, it is clear that applicant is more competent in earning
then respondent no. 1, however legally respondent no. 1 is under
legal, moral and social obligation to maintain applicant. The
applicant has demanded Rs.2 lacs per month from respondent no.
1, however in purview of income shown by respondent no.1 on
oath, the demanded amount appears to be very exorbitant. The
respondent no. 1 has annexed his income tax returns, whereas the
applicant has not filed any legal proof to show the competency of
respondent no. 1 to pay such huge amount. In such situation, the
demanded amount cannot be approved. In so far as, income stated
by respondent no. 1 is concerned, at the first blush, it appears to be
very low. This stated income is such that it will be insufficient for
respondent no.1 himself. Mere quoting minimum income would
not absolve the responsibility of respondent no. 1 as husband.
Though respondent no. 1 is having meagre income, however to
perform matrimonial obligation, he has to enhance income by
exerting more. Thus considering income of respondent no.1 as per
his affidavit, the quantum of maintenance will be nothing but
mockery with the applicant as well as object of PWDV Act. Apart
from that the income of respondent no. 1 quoted by applicant is
having no legal foundation. Thus on the basis of events occurred in
their matrimonial life, the performance of marriage in hotel like
Grand Hyatt Goa and their lifestyle and competency of applicant to
earn, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.20,000/- per
-- 7 of 8 --
C. C. No. 336/ DV / 2018.
:8:
month as interim maintenance will assist the applicant in boosting
her life. This amount will encourage applicant to live more
peacefully and comfortably. It will not cause any substantial
prejudice to respondent no.1. Thus to advance the cause of justice
to the applicant as well as respondents, I am satisfied to direct the
respondent no. 1 to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to applicant as
interim maintenance. Hence I am satisfied to pass following order:
ORDER
i. Application is partly allowed.
ii. The respondents are directed not to commit any kind of
domestic violence with applicant in future.
iii. The respondent no.1is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rs.
Twenty Thousand) per month to applicant from the date of
filing this application.
iv. Copy of this order be given to both parties free of cost.
Sd/-
Dt : 20.12.2021 (R. R. Khan)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai
-- 8 of 8 --