Interim Order 2

Order Details: Interim Maintenance Order
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. No. 377/DV/2018 Int.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
66TH COURT ANDHERI MUMBAI
C.C. NO. 377/DV/2018
Sawti Mahadev (Kishor) Swami ... Aggrieved Person
v/s.
Mahadev (Kishor) Baban Swami & Ors. ... Respondents
Order passed below interim application (Exh. 4) for Interim Maintenance
& other reliefs U/s. 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act 2005:
1. Perused the application and say of respondents. Read the
affidavits of Assets and Liabilities of both parties. Read the documents filed on
record. Heard both parties at length. Present application is filed by aggrieved
person for granting various interim reliefs as per the provisions of The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. (Hereinafter referred to as
“D.V. Act” for the sake of brevity). The house property situated at LXX-4/5-41,
Ashok Nagar, Pipe Line, Safed Pool, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 072 is the
matrimonial house of aggrieved person. (Hereinafter referred to as “Shared
Household”).
2. It is the case of aggrieved person that she filed original petition
for various reliefs as per the provisions of D.V. Act. The marriage between her
and respondent no.1 took place on 14/05/2007. They are blessed with two
sons Soham and Shreyas. Respondents demanded dowry with her one year
after her marriage. They were not giving meals to her. They abused her for
trifle reasons. Even, they harassed her during her pregnancy. They refused to
take her and her first child back in the house and demanded Rs.51,000/- as
dowry and two tolas gold. After police intervention, respondents permitted
her to enter their house. Respondent no.1 refused to pay school fee of
children. Respondents were not ready to take her back after delivery of
second child. Handicapped girl was born to respondent no. 4 and 5 for which
she was blamed by respondents. Aggrieved person lodged police complaint
against respondents. Respondent no.1 had left house frequently on the say of
-- 1 of 5 --
2 C.C. No. 377/DV/2018 Int.
other respondents and not returned back to home for the period of two
months. He is not giving money for household expenses. On 05/07/2018
respondent nos. 3 and 6 came at the residence of aggrieved person and
beaten her. Therefore, she lodged police complaint against them. On
20/10/2018, she lodged complaint against respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 with
Sakinaka Police Station. Respondent no. 3 demanded sexual favour with her
in lieu of dowry and gold on 20/10/2018 and started molesting her. She
lodged report in respect of said incident with Sakinaka Police on 23/10/2018.
On 07/12/2018, respondent no.3 knocked door of house of aggrieved person
at late night. He entered in the house and started pressing her chest. On
09/12/2018, she lodged report in respect of said incident with Sakinaka
Police Station.
3. Respondents are doing the business of selling onion and potatos
and thereby earning Rs.1 lac per month. They are having four houses at Kurla,
Sakinaka.They purchased land at Malegaon, Tal. Murbad, Dist. Thane in the
year 2014. Respondent no. 1 to 5 have purchased second house at Safed
Pool, Sakinaka. Resondents gave one house on rent. Finally, she requested to
declare her right to reside in shared household, to restrain respondents from
droving her out of the shared household, to restrain respondents from
alienating or disposing off shared household in any way, to grant Rs.20,000/-
as interim maintenance for herself and Rs.6,000/- per month each to her
children, to direct respondent no.1 to give lumpsum amount of Rs.50 lacs
towards permanent alimony and to grant cost of Rs.30,000/- towards present
application.
4. Respondent no.1 resisted the application by filing his say at Exh.
21. At the outset, he denied all the allegations in the petition. However, he
admitted his relationship with aggrieved person. It is contended by
respondent that respondent no.3 Mangal Swami has also filed petition bearing
C.C. No. 334/DV/2018 under D.V. Act. After receiving notices of said petition,
aggrieved person filed present petition. She is not approached before the
-- 2 of 5 --
3 C.C. No. 377/DV/2018 Int.
court with clean hand. She filed present petition for countering the petition
filed by respondent no.3. Respondents have filed number of N.Cs and written
complaint with various authorities since from 2016. Aggrieved person, her
parent and her brother are so voilent towards respondents. Respondent no.3
filed complaint bearing no. 03/SW/2016 in the court. Aggrieved person is
claiming matrimonial rights over the house in which she is presently residing.
Said house is in the name of respondent no.2, who is her father-in-law.
Respondent no.1 was working in the shop of respondent no.4 who is brother-
in-law of aggrieved person. Respondent no.1 is willing and ready to take
aggrieved person and her two minor children at his place. Respondents are
the victims. Aggrieved person illtreated them on number of time. Finally,
respondent no.1 requested for rejection of the application.
5. Heard both the sides at length. Ld. Advocate of aggrieved person
vehemently argued that aggrieved person was not allowed by respondents to
entered into shared household. She was harassed by respondents. Her two
children are depend upon her. There are five houses in the name of
respondents. Houses are transferred in the name of other family members. On
the contrary, Ld. Advocate of respondents argued that mother-in-law of
aggrieved person filed petition under D.V. Act against aggrieved person.
Aggrieved person and respondent no.1 are residing in same house. Criminal
Case under section 324 of IPC is filed against aggrieved person. No house is
standing in the name of respondents. Many complaints has been filed by
family members of respondents and persons living in said locality against her.
Respondent no.1 is residing on rent. Aggrieved person wants house in her
name. Respondent no.1 is ready to take her back. Respondent no.1 is daily
earner.
6. After hearing the submission of the parties, I have gone through
the documents available on record. It is not in dispute that the marriage of
aggrieved person and Respondent no.1 took place on 14/05/2007 and they
blessed with two children. There is no dispute in respect of relationship in
-- 3 of 5 --
4 C.C. No. 377/DV/2018 Int.
between parties. The merit of the allegations and counter allegations can be
decided after evidence. At this stage, court has to see whether aggrieved
person has put-forth prima facie case of domestic violence against her at the
hands of the respondents. Therefore, there is no need to go into the minute
details on the merits of the case. Respondents have admitted the marriage in
between aggrieved person and respondent no.1. Prima facie, domestic
relationships in between them appears on record.
7. It is the duty of respondent no.1 to maintain his wife and
children. Two minor children are residing with aggrieved person. It is come
on record that aggrieved person and respondent no.1 are residing in same
house. No evidence is available on record showing the intention of
respondents to dispose off shared household. For granting lumpsum
compensation evidence is necessary. I find no any threat to the life of
aggrieved person at the hands of respondents in near future. So, there is no
need to pass any protection order in favour of aggrieved person. Therefore,
except interim maintenance, I am of view that there is no need to grant any
other interim reliefs at this stage.
8. School going children are depend upon aggrieved person. Being
husband and father, respondent no.1 has to maintain aggrieved person and
her children. However, it is not come on record that respondent no.1 had paid
any amount to aggrieved person or his children towards their livelihood. He
failed to maintain his wife and children. Aggrieved person was not allowed to
enter into her shared household. She was kept on starvention. Respondent
no.1 refused to pay school fee of children. From the incidents narrated in the
petition, I am of view that aggrieved person prima facie proved domestic
violence against respondent no.1. Therefore, she is entitled for interim
maintenance for herself and her children from her husband.
9. By considering the status of the parties and their income,
quantum of interim maintenance needs to be determined. Aggrieved person
-- 4 of 5 --
5 C.C. No. 377/DV/2018 Int.
contended that respondent no.1 is doing the business of selling onions and
potatos. Family of respondent purchased landed property at Malegaon as per
the contention of aggrieved person. Respondent no.1 appears to be
ablebodied person. Therefore, he is capable to earn the money. He has to
maintain his wife and children. Therefore, it would be just and proper to
grant Rs.3,000/- per month to aggrieved person and Rs.2,000/- per month
each to her each childeren as a interim maintenance from respondent no.1.
Respondent no.1 has not paid any amount earlier. Therefore, such amounts
needs to be granted from the filing of the present application. In this view of
matter, I proceed to pass following order:
O R D E R
1. The application is partly allowed as observed above.
2. Respondent no.1 Mahadev (Kishor) Baban Swami shall pay an amount
of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) per month to the
aggrieved person and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per
month to her each children as an interim maintenance from the date of
filing of present application till disposal of the main petition.
3. Rest of the prayers of aggrieved person are hereby rejected.
4. Copy of this order be given to both the parties free of costs.
Sd/-
Date : 25/08/2021 (Bhagawat T. Zirape)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 5 of 5 --