Final Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: JUDGMENT 1 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
MHMM190137752018
Presented on : 15.12.2018
Registered on : 15.12.2018
Decided on : 15.02.2025
Duration : 06Y 02M 00D
Exh. No. 31
BEFORE THE ADDIL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
22nd COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided Over by J. W. Gaikwad)
C.C.No. 374/DV/2018
Mrs. Rohini Sagar Ahire
Age : 21 years
Occupation :
R/at : New Awad nagar, Hanuman Mandir,
Gani Nagar, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 098. : .…. Applicant
V/s.
1) Mr. Sagar Jaysingh Ahire
2) Chhaya Jaysingh Ahire
3) Sandeep @ Anna Ahire
4) Smt. Durga Sandeep Ahire
5) Deepa Ahire
6) Sonali Deepak Ahire
7) Krishna Agure : ….. Respondents
APPEARANCE :-
Ld. Counsel Shri. Rohan Gangurde for Applicant.
Ld. Counsel Shri Ganesh Khiradkar for respondent
...02/-
-- 1 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 2 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 15.02.2025)
Respondent No.1 is the husband of applicant, respondent
No.2 is her mother-in-law and other respondent are her in-laws. The
marriage between applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on
14.05.2018.
2. The applicant stated that after marriage she went to reside
at her matrimonial place with respondent and his family. But within a
month of the said marriage she was subjected to physical & mental ill-
treatment. Respondent No.1 was consuming liquor and used to do
unnatural intercourse with the applicant and on her refusal, he used to
beat and assault her. Respondent No.2 used to complaint that applicant
does not know household work and she was abusing her with most
filthy language. Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 were suspecting her. They were
also not allowing her to contact her parents. Further she stated that at
the instigation of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6, respondent No.1 used to
assault her mercilessly and they were not providing sufficient food and
medicine to the applicant. They were demanding dowry from her
parents and to meet their unlawful demands they have driven her out of
the house. It is further contended by her that, currently she is residing
with her parents. She is unable to maintain herself.
3. The respondents have resisted the application by filing
...03/-
-- 2 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 3 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
reply. They have admitted the relationship, however, denied the
acts of domestic violence as alleged by the applicant. According to the
respondents, the applicant was not doing household work and used to
quarrel with them. She used to leave the matrimonial house and the
respondent No.1 used to bring her back. It is further submitted by them
that, the applicant left the house on 17-07-2018 on her own accord and
didn't return since then. It is further submitted by them that, the
applicant is doing tailoring work and thereby earning Rs.8,000/- per
month. It is further submitted by them that, the respondent No.1 is
working as a Driver and hardly earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
4. Considering the submissions of applicant following points
arise for my determination and I record my findings thereon with
reason thereof :-
POINTS FINDINGS
1) Does the applicant prove that,
respondents committed domestic
violence against her? : Yes.
2) Does applicant entitled to
maintenance, if yes to what extent?
: Yes. Maintenance @
Rs. 5,000/- per month
3) To what reliefs applicant is entitled ? : Application is partly
allowed.
-: R E A S O N S :-
AS TO POINT Nos. 1 & 2 :-
5. Perused the record. Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant.
The applicant in order to prove the facts, examined herself at Exh-29.
...04/-
-- 3 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 4 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
Respondent failed to appear before the Court and cross-examine the
applicant, hence no cross order was passed by this Court.
6. The applicant in order to prove her case, testified vide
Exh-29. In her deposition she states that she is legally wedded wife of
respondent No.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2018. Soon
after marriage she went to reside at her matrimonial place. It was a
joint family. Within one month of the marriage the respondents started
giving mental and physical torture to the applicant.
7. It is further testified that the respondent No.1, her husband
was consuming liquor and indulged in unnatural sex with the applicant
and on her refusal, he used to beat her. Respondent No.2 used to
complain that applicant does not know household work and she abused
her in filthy language. Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 were suspecting her
character. They were also not allowing her to contact her parents.
Further she stated that at the instigation of respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 6
respondent No.1 used to assault her mercilessly and didn’t even provide
sufficient food and medicine to the applicant when she fallen ill.
8. The respondent directed the applicant to bring dowry of
Rs.2.00 Lakhs from her parents to purchase car. They had also given
threats to kill applicant, if their demand is not fulfilled by her.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 used to lock the door whenever they go out of
the house. She was compelled to leave the home on account of demand
of dowry of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs. She is living on the mercy of her parents.
She has no means to maintain. She had sent legal notice-cum- police
...05/-
-- 4 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 5 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
complaint to M.I.D.C. Police Station against all the respondents Due to
this respondent No.1 threatened her father and abused him in filthy
language on phone. Hence, her father lodged N.C. against respondent
No.1 and police also recorded her statement. Further she stated that
respondent No.1 neglected to maintain her. The respondent No.1 is
working as driver and thereby earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Further
respondent No.1 is also having share in the landed property having Gat
No.182 at village, Tal-Baglaan, Dist-Nashik
9. The testimony of applicant is supported by PW No. 2 who
happens to be father of applicant. The oral testimony on record went
unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of applicant as
applicant made out the case of harassment at the hands of respondents.
Even it is a fact that she is living without financial support from
respondent No.1. There is nothing in rebuttal, nor anything to show
that they helped her at any point of time, financially. In view of
unchallenged oral testimony supported with the documentary evidence
i.e. N.C. The applicant prima-facie made out a case of domestic
violence against the respondents. Therefore, I answer point No. 1 in the
affirmative.
AS TO POINT No. 2 :-
10. As the applicant has claimed maintenance and prohibitory
order regarding violence upon her at the hands of respondents, it is a
fact that there is no means available to applicant to maintain herself.
Respondent No.1 being husband, is legally and morally bound to
maintain his wife. He is able bodied person and the fact remains that
...06/-
-- 5 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 6 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
there are movable and immovable property jointly held up by the family
and by employing those properties the respondent No.1 can generate
sufficient income to support himself and applicant. Therefore, the
applicant deserves maintenance. Looking to the status of the parties,
the wife deserve maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the
respondent No.1. Further, the respondents are prohibited from
indulging in any sort of domestic violence against applicant. The
applicant was forced to redress her grievance by filing this petition
before this Court. Therefore, she is also entitled to cost of proceeding.
Hence, the following order:-
O R D E R
1. The petition is partly allowed.
2. The respondents are hereby prohibited from committing any
sort of domestic violence upon applicant.
3. The respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month
maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing of the
petition.
4. The order of interim maintenance is merged with the final
order.
5. Any payment made in compliance to the interim order shall be
adjusted while considering the final maintenance order, from
the date of application.
6. The respondents shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation
expenses to applicant jointly and severally.
...07/-
-- 6 of 7 --
JUDGMENT 7 C.C. NO.374/DV/2018
7. The copy of judgment shall also be forwarded to local Police
Station as well as Protection Officer.
(Judgment dictated on dais and pronounced in open court).
Date.:- 15.02.2025
(J. W. Gaikwad)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai
Typed on : 27.02.2025
Signed on : 03.03.2025
.../-
-- 7 of 7 --