Order 1

Pdf Text: 1 C. C. NO.340/DV/2018
Nashrah Yasin Shaikh .... The petitioner
Vs
Yasin Mehboob Shaikh & Ors. .... The respondent/s
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION U/SEC 23 OF THE PROTECTION
OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLANCE ACT, 2005
1. By way of present petition, she claimed interim relief/s. Heard
Ld counsel of petitioner. Respondent party is absent for arguments
when called repeatedly.
2. Petitioner is the wife of respondent. According to the petitioner
lady, she got married with respondent No.1 on 05.07.2017. She is
issueless. However, she was subjected to various types of domestic
violence.
3. Respondents submitted reply and strongly opposed the
application.
4. It is admitted position that both the parties had got married. Said
marriage was performed on 05.07.2017. It is admitted position that
presently, petitioner wife is not staying with respondent husband, as she
is staying with her parents.
5. According to petitioner, she is not having earning source. There
is no evidence produced by the respondent to show that whether
petitioner lady is having any income or any property on her name.
Under such circumstances, in absence of evidence, at this stage, I have
to accept that she is not having income and unable to maintain herself.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 C. C. NO.340/DV/2018
6. According to petitioner, the respondent husband is Estate Agent
and therefrom earns huge monthly income. Respondent denied said
facts. Respondent husband produced salary slip issued by Sadhana
Agencies where he works as HR and Admin. He earns Rs.12,000/pm.
It is true that said salary is appearing from very lower side in present
Era of inflation. However when document is produced for inspection of
the court, in that event I have to accept said document, at this stage.
7. DV Act is a social legislation. Therefore, at this primary stage,
objections raised by the respondent/s cannot be considered in detail.
Those objections will have to be considered on merits, in main case.
8. It is the settled position of law that husband even if a beggar or
hermit or physically challenged person, the same cannot be a ground to
exonerate him from the responsibility of paying interim maintenance to
wife. Perusal of record it shows that respondent husband is an able
and well built person, this aspect cannot be ignored.
9. The petitioner lady submitted the application which is supported
by her affidavit, therefore, prima facie, it appears that petitioner wife
was subjected to domestic violence. So far as, the remaining prayers
are concerned, the same will have to be decided after recording
evidence at the time of final judgment.
10. So far as, quantum of maintenance is concern, there are two
ends. One is to award the same from higher side, the other one is to
award it from the lower side. However, in my humble view, court has
to strike balance between the said both the ends and to award
justifiable/reasonable interim maintenance.
Considering peculiar facts, circumstances, alongwith liabilities &
evidence etc of the parties, petitioner wife is entitled to reasonable
-- 2 of 3 --
3 C. C. NO.340/DV/2018
interim maintenance. Therefore, in view of object of DV Act, I proceed
to pass following order in the interest of justice :
O R D E R
1. The petition stands allowed, partly.
2. The respondent husband shall pay total Rs.6,000/p.m
interim maintenance (including rent) to the Petitioner wife, from the
date of this petition.
3. Respondent/s is hereby restrained from causing any sort of
domestic violence to the petitioner lady in any manner.
4. Respondent/s shall not visit the place where petitioner wife
is staying presently.
5. Parties are at liberty to submit application for referrring
matter to the Mediation, for amicable settlement.
6. The above observations are preliminary in nature, the same
may vary during the final judgment, subject to proposed evidence.
7. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs vide
Sec.24 of the Act.
8. Petitioner wife is at liberty to show copy of this order
before the concern Protection Officer/PSO, as and when required.
Sd/
Dt : 08.05.2019. ( S.C. Pathare),
Metropolitan Magistrate,
65th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
ask
-- 3 of 3 --