Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
Filed on : 21/12/2018
Registered on : 21/12/2018
Decided on : 08/02/2023
Duration : 04Yrs. 01 M 18 D
Exh. :
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Shri Vijay C.Gawai)
C. C. No.364/DV/2018
Mrs.Asmat @ Shabnam Mohammed Sharifuddin Shaikh & Ors.
Age: 32 yrs.
R/o.: Room No.2, Jai Hind Society,
Netaji Nagar, Khadi No.3,
90 feet Road Sakinaka, Mumbai … Aggrieved person
V/s.
1. Mr Mohammed Sharifuddin Shaikh (Husband)
2) Mr.Madar Shaikh (FatherinLaw)
3) Mrs.Chandbi Shaikh (MotherinLaw)
4)Miss.Jamila Shaikh (SisterinLaw)
5) Miss.Shabnam Shaikh (SisterinLaw)
All R/o : Dindayal Nagar, Rabbani Masjid,
Post – Mandal, Tahseel & Police Station
Metapali, Dist Jugtial, StateTelanganan … Respondents
Appearances:
Ld. Advocate Mr.Tariq A.A.
Chaudhary
For the Aggrieved person.
Exparte For the Respondents.
-- 1 of 9 --
2 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on this 08th day of February 2023)
This petition is filed for various reliefs as per the provisions
of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In short, the case of an aggrieved person is as under:
2. Respondent no.1 is husband of applicant and others are her
inlaw's. Her marriage with respondent no.1 was solemnized on
20/01/2003 at Ashok Nagar, Kurla, Mumbai. All the expenses of their
marriage was borne by her parents. Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs.Two Lakhs)were
paid as dowry and they had spent Rs.5,00,000/ (Rs.Five Lakhs) as mar
riage expenses. After marriage they went to reside in Saudi where Re
spondent no.1 was serving as Foreman and was drawing salary of
Rs.1,00,000/ per month. They returned back to India in August2003.
Respondent no.2 onwards are her inlaw's. Out of the said wedlock they
are blessed with one male and one female child. Meanwhile, all the re
spondents started illtreating the applicant for want of dowry and on the
count of female child. All the respondents used to harass her on petty is
sues. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have mortgaged her ornaments without
her knowledge. He is drug addict and used to assault her under the influ
ence of drug. She was driven out of the house in the month of March
2012. Since then, she is residing with her parents. The respondent has
not taken care of either applicant or their minor children. She is surviving
at the mercy of the parents. Hence, the present application.
3. Respondents, despite of service of notice choose to remain
absent. Hence, application was order to be proceeded exparte against
respondent no.1 on 24/10/2019. However, the applicant has withdrawn
the proceeding against respondent nos. 2 to 6.
-- 2 of 9 --
3 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
4. Considering, the contents of application and her oral evi
dence following points arise for my determination and I have recorded
my findings thereon are as under :
SR.
NO.
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether an aggrieved person proves the
domestic violence against her at the hands
of respondents?
In the
Affirmative.
2 Whether the aggrieved person is entitled
to relief of protection order, residence
order, Sridhan, compensation and
damages?
Partly
Affirmative.
3 Whether the aggrieved person is entitled
to monthly maintenance? If yes, to what
extent?
In the
Affirmative.
[Rs.7,000/
per month]
4 What order? Petition is
partly
allowed.
R E A S O N S
5. To prove the case, aggrieved person examined herself at
Exh.11 and closed her evidence. Respondents were absent. Therefore,
no cross order came to be passed. Matter was posted for evidence of
respondents. Because, of their continuous absent, evidence of
respondents is closed. Respondents were continuously absent and
therefore case is taken up for final disposal without oral argument of
respondents.
As to point no.1
6. Vide her affidavit of examinationinchief at Exh.11.
Applicant deposed before the Court that she is legally wedded wife of
-- 3 of 9 --
4 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
respondent no.1 and applicant nos.2 and 3 are born out of said
wedlock. She deposed much or less what she had stated in her
application. It is her contention that all the expenses of their marriage
were borne by her parents. Huge amount was spent on gift, food and
ornaments. After marriage, she went to the house of respondents
meanwhile they had been to Saudi Arabia and returned back in the year
2003. He was serving their as Foreman and was drawing Rs,1,00,000/
(Rs.One Lakh only)per month. Since when they returned back to India,
the respondent no.1 was totally changed. He used to assault her under
the influence of drug. He is drugaddict and womanizer. Meanwhile,
they are blessed with male child and one female child. She is driven
out of the house in the year 2012. Since, then she is residing with her
parents. Despite of having sufficient means, he is not taking care either
of the applicant or their minor kids. She is living there at the mercy of
her parents.
7. The respondents were absent continuously. She is not
crossexamined by the respondents. Therefore, her oral evidence on the
point of domestic violence at the hands of respondents gone
unchallenged through out the trial. She has established the domestic
violence by way of her oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, in
view of above discussion I answered point no.1 in affirmative.
As to Point No.2:
8. Aggrieved person is seeking protection order also. The
present petition is filed in the year 2018. Till today, no incident is
brought on record showing any threats to the life of the aggrieved
person. Further, she is residing with her parents and therefore, I am of
the humble opinion that it is not justifiable to pass any protection order
in favour of the aggrieved person. Moreover, she has not adduced any
-- 4 of 9 --
5 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
evidence showing any danger to her life at the hands of respondents.
Therefore, I am of the view that she is not entitled to any protection
order.
9. Aggrieved person is seeking an order of compensation or
damages from respondents. It is her contention that she was subjected
to cruelty at the hands of respondents. Therefore, she wants
compensation and damages. Since, she is not crossexamined. Her oral
evidence on the point of domestic incident, compensation and damaged
gone unchallenged. Nothing is thereon record to wipe out her oral
evidence on the point of domestic violence. Hence, in my view she is
entitled for damages and compensation as prayed for.
10. Case of the applicant is that while her stay with the
respondents, they had mortgaged her sridhan and ornaments without
her knowledge. There is no reason to disbelieve her contention that the
respondents had mortgaged her sridhan. Hence, I am of the view that
she is entitled for sridhan.
11. It is her contention that despite of having sufficient means
respondent no.1 is not taking care of her and their minor kids. It is seen
from her oral evidence that she is residing on rent nearby her parental
house. The respondent no.1 being husband is liable to maintain all the
applicants. It has not come on record that he has paid some money to
them for their survival. Hence, in view of above discussion, I answered
point no.2 in affirmative.
As to point nos. 3 and 4:
12. In view of my findings on point no.1, respondents have
committed domestic violence against the aggrieved person. No concrete
proof or cogent evidence brought on record by the aggrieved person
-- 5 of 9 --
6 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
showing the fixed income of respondent no.1. The applicant deposed
before the Court that he is political person and earning handsome amount.
13. By considering the status, dependency and income source of
parties, the quantum of maintenance needs to be determined. Therefore,
considering these situations, I am of the humble opinion that it would be
just and proper to grant monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs..7,000/
per month in favour of the aggrieved person. It is seen that no amount is
paid by respondent earlier. Hence, it needs to be considered since the
date of filing of the petition. Therefore, in view of above discussion I
answered point no. 3 in the affirmative and in answered to point no.4,
pass the following order.
O R D E R
1 The petition is partly allowed.
2 Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs.7,000/ per month to the applicants /
aggrieved persons from the date of application, collectively as a
maintenance.
3 Respondent no.1 is hereby restrained from committing any domes
tic violence.
4 Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to return the Sridhan i.e gold
ornaments mentioned in Exh.no. 16 Serial nos. 2 to 4 only
5 Respondent no.1 is hereby further directed to pay Rs.10,000/ as a
cost of litigation and Rs.15,000/ as a compensation.
6 Copy of judgment be given to both parties free of costs.
7 Dictated and pronounced in open court.
Date:08/02/2023
(V.C.Gawai)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
(Correction is made in view of order on Exh.18 dated 28/06/2023.)
-- 6 of 9 --
7 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Shri Vijay C.Gawai)
C. C. No.364/DV/2018
Mrs.Asmat @ Shabnam Mohammed Sharifuddin Shaikh & Ors.
Age: 32 yrs.
R/o.: Room No.2, Jai Hind Society,
Netaji Nagar, Khadi No.3,
90 feet Road Sakinaka, Mumbai … Aggrieved person
V/s.
1. Mr Mohammed Sharifuddin Shaikh (Husband)
2) Mr.Madar Shaikh (FatherinLaw)
3) Mrs.Chandbi Shaikh (MotherinLaw)
4)Miss.Jamila Shaikh (SisterinLaw)
5) Miss.Shabnam Shaikh (SisterinLaw)
All R/o : Dindayal Nagar, Rabbani Masjid,
Post – Mandal, Tahseel & Police Station
Metapali, Dist Jugtial, StateTelanganan … Respondents
O P E R A T I V E O R D E R
1 The petition is partly allowed.
2 Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs.7,000/ per month to the applicants /
aggrieved persons from the date of application, collectively as a
maintenance.
3 Respondent no.1 is hereby restrained from committing any do
mestic violence.
4 Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to return the Sridhan i.e gold
ornaments mentioned in Exh.no. 16 Serial nos. 2 to 4 only
5 Respondent no.1 is hereby further directed to pay Rs.10,000/ as
a cost of litigation and Rs.15,000/ as a compensation.
6 Copy of judgment be given to both parties free of costs.
Date:08/02/2023
(V.C.Gawai)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
(Correction is made in view of order on Exh.18 dated 28/06/2023.)
-- 7 of 9 --
8 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
-- 8 of 9 --
9 C.C. NO. 364/DV/2018 Judg.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by Shri Vijay C.Gawai)
C. C. No.364/DV/2018
Mrs.Asmat @ Shabnam Mohammed Sharifuddin Shaikh
& Ors. … Aggrieved person
V/s.
Mr Mohammed Sharifuddin Shaikh & Others … Respondents
Order Below Exh.18
Read. Heard. Perused record.
This is an application filed on behalf of applicant for correction in
operative order in Judgement delivered on 08/02/2023 by this Court.
It is submitted that the petition filed by the applicant is allowed and
respondent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.7,000/ per month as
maintenance to the applicant but no specific date is mentioned from
which the maintenance is allowed. I have gone through the judgment
dated 08/02/2023. It is noticed that inadvertantly date is not
mentioned hence, in result following order is passed :
O R D E R
Application Exh.18 is allowed.
2. Necessary alteration be made in Judgement dated 08/02/2023.
Date : 28/06/2023 (Vijay C. Gawai)
Metropolitan Magistrate
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 9 of 9 --