Order 1

Pdf Text: C. C. No. : 313 /DV/2018 ~1~
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C. C. No. : 313 /DV/2018.
Sony Satayanarayan Vishwakarma. … Applicant.
V/s.
Satayanarayan Vishwakarma and Ors. … Respondents.
ORDER BELOW INTERIM APPLICATION (EXH.3)
U/SEC. 23 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005
Read the application, affidavit, say of the
respondents. Heard Ld. counsels for both the parties, at
length. Perused documents filed by the applicant and the
respondents, also perused additional documents filed by
applicant with list.
2. It reveals that, the applicant has made this
application U/Sec. 23 of the protection of women from
domestic violence act, 2005 for grant of interim reliefs of
maintenance from the respondent No. 1.
3. The relations in between applicant and respondents
are not in dispute. It is also not disputed fact that, they are
resided separately from each other. It is also not disputed fact
that, they were blessed with one child from the said wedlock.
It is also not disputed fact that, applicant is residing at her
-- 1 of 5 --
C. C. No. : 313 /DV/2018 ~2~
parents house. It is also not disputed fact that, respondent
No.1 is earning member as well as other members of his
family are also earning. It is also not disputed fact that, there
exist dispute in between applicant and respondents, by virtue
of it criminal offences registered by applicant and same
registered as NC. The only dispute is that, it is respondents
have committed domestic violence against applicant and
compelled her to reside at her parents house or not, or it is
applicant who is responsible for her residence at her parents
house.
4. In short it is case of the applicant that, after
marriage she cohabit with respondent, she was subjected to
domestic violence by respondent No.1, also respondents No.
3 and 4 harassed her sexually and physically, which compelled
her to reside at her parents house. Therefore, prayed for
interim relief and relief of protection order and damages for
compensation and maintenance.
5. Respondents have denied fact of domestic violence
as well as harassing to applicant physically, mentally and
sexually. On the contrary they respect her, as she is wife of
elder brother. They further submitted that, respondent No.1
is not having any income as alleged by applicant, as he is
doing job of carpenter and earning `.10,000/ p.m., lastly
prayed to reject the application.
-- 2 of 5 --
C. C. No. : 313 /DV/2018 ~3~
6. Ld. Counsel for applicant argued that the material
available on record disclosed domestic violence at the hands
of respondent. On the contrary Ld. Counsel for respondents
submitted that, nothing on record to show the domestic
violence at the hands of respondents, mere on the basis of
assumptions and presumptions the court cannot consider the
prayer made by applicant. If considered fact with regard to
allegations made by applicant against respondents, there is no
reason for applicant to raise allegations against respondents
and compelled to reside with her parents house. If considered
definition of domestic violence, it is so wide and allegations
made by applicant clearly falls within it. Primafacie there is
reason to believe that respondents committed domestic
violence.
7. So far as relief claimed by applicant is concern,
material available on record nowhere disclosed the damages,
compensation and other reliefs, but considering this fact she is
reside alongwith her two children at her parents house,
dispute in between parties, though it is alleged that
respondent No.1 earing `.30,000/ p.m., but proof in that
regard is not on record. No doubt respondent No.1 has
disclosed his income as `.10,000/ p.m., he has also not
produced on record any documents in that regard.
-- 3 of 5 --
C. C. No. : 313 /DV/2018 ~4~
8. Ld. Counsel for respondents submitted that, there is
joint bank account of respondent No.1 and his father, she
shows they are earning `.20,000/ p.m. It is not disputed fact
that, family of respondent is joint even it presumed argument
advanced by Ld. Counsel for respondent that respondent is
earning `.8,000/ to `.10,000/ I am of view that applicant is
also in need of maintenance for her survival and her children.
Considering above discussion amount of `.10,000/ p.m.
towards maintenance to applicant and her children is
sufficient, further order of restrain to respondents from
committing any domestic violence against applicant is
required to be passed from creating any domestic violence
against applicant in the future. In view of above discussion, I
pass following order.
O R D E R
1 The application of applicant viz. Sony
Satayanarayan Vishwakarma, for interim
maintenance, is hereby partly allowed, as
under :
i] Respondent No.1. Satayanarayan Vishwakarma
do pay the amount of `.10,000/ ( `.Ten
Thousand Only) p.m. to applicant and her
children towards interim maintenance, from the
-- 4 of 5 --
C. C. No. : 313 /DV/2018 ~5~
date of filing of present application, till disposal
of main application.
ii] Respondents are hereby restrained from
committing domestic violence against the
applicant and her daughter in the future.
iii] Copy of order be given to both the parties free of
cost.
iv] Copy of this order be sent to P.I. of concern
police station, within whose jurisdiction the
applicant resides.
At this juncture Ld. Counsel for respondents
submitted that the order of maintenance be suspended till
filing of evidence. I am of view that, applicant and her
children are in need of maintenance therefore, order passed
cannot be set aside or suspended, therefore, prayer made by
respondents is required to be rejected, hence, it is rejected.
Mumbai.
Dated : 25/01/2019.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 5 --