Order 1

Order Details: Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
44th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C. C. No. 359/DV/2018
Sujata Amit Paradkar .... Applicant/Petitioner
V/s
Amit Madhukar Paradkar …. Respondent
ORDER ON INTERIM MAINTENANCE APPLICATION
(Passed on 13/03/2026.)
The applicant who filed the petition under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, has moved this
interim application for grant of maintenance allowance under section
23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The facts of the application are summarized as under:-
2. The applicant levelled several allegations against the
respondent. Some of the material allegations are narrated here. The
applicant got married with respondent and out of this wedlock they
have two issues. The applicant alleges that the respondent was
behaving with her in irrational and whimsical manner and therefore,
she suffered mental stress and trauma. According to her, when she was
pregnant, her in laws advised her to bear and adjust with the whimsical
behaviour of the respondent. It is further alleged that the respondent
and his family members compelled her to join her earlier job at Belapur
and the respondent was not willing to hire any home maid servant.
-- 1 of 8 --
2
Thus, she was subjected to mental torture.
3. The respondent is alleged to have not maintained cordial
relations with the applicant. According to her, when her mother was
detected Cancer, the respondent did not allow her to take care of her
mother. The respondent did not incur the medical expenses of the
applicant when she was pregnant in the year of 2011. It is further
alleged that when the applicant requested the respondent to search for
separate residential accommodation, he tried to cause injury to the
applicant and threatened her to face dire consequences. Hence, she
lodged police complaint against the respondent.
4. In the month of May, 2020 the applicant lost her job due to
constant mental and physical torture given by the respondent and she
was completely dependent upon the respondent. The respondent is
alleged to have caused her humiliation, abuses and harassment.
According to the applicant, she was driven out of her matrimonial home
in the month of January, 2021 and since then she has been residing as
paying guest. Thus, in short, according to the applicant, she was
subjected to domestic violence and the respondent neglected to keep
and maintain her.
5. According to the applicant, the respondent is an Engineer
and earns handsome payment for more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month.
She further submits that the respondent is residing in his own flat and
he is having ancestor property. On the other hand, according to her,it is
very difficult for her to bear her own expenses and therefore, she has
claimed the monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. So also
she has sought the protection order and the residence order.
6. Per contra, the respondent filed the reply to the interim
application on 21/06/2022 and thereby denied all the allegations
levelled against him and has come with the stand that both the children
-- 2 of 8 --
3
are not comfortable with the applicant. According to him, he has been
taking care of his two issues and the applicant did not try to interact
with them. It is alleged by the respondent that the applicant herself left
the matrimonial house without informing him and she had taken a flat
for herself.
7. It is submitted by the respondent that the applicant has
filed this application on false and frivolous ground. According to him,
the applicant refused for consummation of the marriage and always
behaved in adamant, cruel and rude manners. He alleges that the
applicant never fulfilled the matrimonial obligations and destroyed his
life. According to him, the applicant lodged false complaint against
him with the help of the police machinery. Hence, according to him, the
applicant is not entitled to seek any relief as sought in the application.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for both the side, I
perused the record. In the backdrop of the rival submissions, following
points arise for my determination:-
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the applicant is entitled
for interim monetary relief,
residence order and protection
order as prayed for?
Yes
2. What order? The application is partly
allowed as per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1:
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note here that the applicant
filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
-- 3 of 8 --
4
Domestic Violence Act on 04/12/2018. The respondent has nowhere
denied the domestic relationship with the applicant. It is also admitted
position that the applicant and the respondent have two issues out of
their wedlock. The applicant has sought the interim maintenance on
the ground that though she gets monthly income, yet said income is not
sufficient to fulfill her basic needs.
10. Before embarking upon the conclusion regarding the
maintenance allowance, it is necessary to mention here the guidelines
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pravin Kumar Jain
Vs Anju Jain (2025) 2 SCC 227 for fixing the amount of maintenance
and the factors to be looked into in this regard. These guidelines are as
under:
i] Status of the parties, social and financial.
ii] Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.
iii] Parties’ individual qualification and employment statuses.
iv] Independent income or asset owned by the applicant.
v] Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
vi] Any employment sacrifices made for responsibilities.
vii] Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
viii] Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance
obligation and liabilities.
11. Having gone through the documents placed on record, it
appears that both the applicant and respondent have made allegations
against each other. The record shows that the applicant had already
lodged the police complaints against the respondent. She has stated on
oath that she was subjected to domestic violence at the hand of
respondent. It is needless to say here that the applicant and the
respondent will prove the allegations made against each other and the
trial will take its own time. However, having regard to the documents
-- 4 of 8 --
5
placed on record, it appears that the relations between the applicant
and the respondent are strained. Thus, the documents placed on record
demonstrate that the applicant has prima facie proved that she is
aggrieved person. Moreover, having regard to the documents placed
on record and the statement made on affidavit, it appears that the
applicant has prima facie established the domestic violence as
contemplated under section 3 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Now I turn to decide the quantum of the
interim maintenance.
12. It is admitted fact that the applicant is residing separate
from the respondent. As per the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed
by the applicant on record on 19/09/2022 along with this application,
it is reflected that she was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by doing a
job of Stress Engineer. But now she is currently jobless from the month
of August, 2022. However, according to her, the respondent works as
Project Manager and gets salary of Rs.1,75,000/- per month.
13. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent filed his
affidavit of assets and liabilities on 02/08/2023 and has specifically
mentioned that he works as Project Engineer Coordinator II in Worley
India Pvt. Ltd., and earns monthly income to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- .
Thus, the income sources of the respondent as pointed out by the
applicant are admitted by the respondent.
14. As per the averments made in the said affidavit of the
respondent, the applicant has been working in Mott McDonald India
Limited, Powai and she gets salary to the tune of Rs.80,800/- per
month. But the record shows that the respondent has not filed the
relevant document to support his claim regarding the income of the
applicant. Even if the affidavit of the respondent is considered, still it is
reflected that he is getting more salary than that of the applicant.
-- 5 of 8 --
6
15. It is the stand of the respondent that the applicant is
earning and therefore, she is not entitled to claim the maintenance from
him. But I am not inclined to take into consideration the stand taken by
the applicant. In this regard, I am guided by the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sunita Kachwala Vs Anil Kachwala
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could
not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
16. The applicant has sought the residence order on the ground
that she was driven out of the shared household. It is admitted position
that the applicant is not residing with the respondent. Having regard to
the allegations levelled by the applicant against the respondent, it
appears that their relations are strained now and therefore, she cannot
be compelled to reside with the respondent.
17. In case of Shameema Begum Vs Jabid Iqbal Khan, 2024
SSC Online J & K 712 decided on 21/08/2024 the Hon’ble Jammu and
Kashmir High Court held that under section 23 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a Magistrate has the jurisdiction to
pass and interim residence order before the trial’s conclusion if the
Magistrate is satisfied that the application discloses a prima facie case of
domestic violence. The Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court further
held that interim relief, including residence orders, is crucial to prevent
a women from being rendered homeless during the pendency of the
trial.
18. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and the ratio laid down in the citation
supra, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled for residence order.
19. The applicant has stated on affidavit that she was subjected
to domestic violence and there is apprehension in her mind that the
-- 6 of 8 --
7
respondent may commit domestic violence in future. Hence, she has
sought the protection order under section 18 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The averments made in the
application are supported by the relevant documents i.e. police
complaint. In such circumstances, prima facie it appears that the
applicant has made out the case to get protection order.
20. Considering the documents placed on record by both the
sides, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out the prima
facie case to have the premium of the interim maintenance allowance,
residence order and protection order. Resultantly, I record my finding in
affirmative for point no.1. Having regard to the life style of both the
parties, their financial resources and the necessities as pointed out in
the application, I proceed to pass the following order:
O R D E R
1 The application is partly allowed.
2 The respondent is directed to pay the interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) per month to the
applicant towards the maintenance allowance from the date of
application until further order.
3 The respondent is hereby directed to secure and provide the same
level of alternative accommodation for the applicant as enjoyed in
the shared household in Mumbai within thirty days from the date
of passing this order.
4 If the respondent fails to secure such type of alternative
accommodation for the applicant within the period of 30 days
-- 7 of 8 --
8
from the date of this order, then he shall pay sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month towards the rent/licence
fee for the alternative accommodation from the date of filing of
this application until further order.
5 The respondent is hereby prohibited from committing any act of
domestic violence against the applicant and her relatives.
6 The respondent is hereby restrained from alienating or
disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same
until further order.
7 The copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Protection
Officer for further compliance in accordance with law.
8 The copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
Sd/-
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Date :- 13/03/2026 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 8 of 8 --