1

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

C.C.No.50/DV/2014
OrderbelowapplicationU/sec.23oftheProtectionofWomenFrom
DomesticViolenceAct,2005
1.

TheapplicantMrs.SamikshaAbhishekSinghhasfiledthis

petition against her husband and inlaws U/sec.12 of Protection of

Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as
PWDVAct).Theapplicanthasseparatelyfiledapplicationforinterim
reliefU/sec.23ofPWDVAct.
Thefactsinnutshelloftheapplicant'scaseareasfollows:
2.

The applicant claims to be legally wedded wife of

respondent No.1 Abhishek Shambhu Singh. She contends that, her

marriage was solemnized on 13/5/2011 in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter,
shehadcometoresideandcohabitathermatrimonialhomelocatedat
Po.Sahatwar,WardNo.5,HouseNo.1,Dist.Ballia,UttarPradesh.The
applicantcontendsthat,afterthemarriageshewastreatedproperlyonly
for few months and thereafter the respondents had subjected her to
domestic violence.She alleges that, the respondents were demanding
Rs.50,000/ for buying motorcycle. The said demand was beyond
capacityofherparentsandwhenshehadrefusedthesaiddemand,she
wasassaultedandabusedonrepeatedoccasions.Sheallegesthat,the
respondentbrotherinlawusedtoreturnhomeatlatenightunderthe
influenceofalcoholandwasmakingfalseallegationsagainsther.He
usedtolockthe applicant intheroomandafterputtingclothinher
mouthshewasassaultedbyherhusband.Shecontendsthat,hersister
inlawsalsousedtoharassandtortureher.Theapplicanthasnarrated
fewdatesinherapplicationandallegesthat,onthesedatesshewas
subjectedtoilltreatment.Shewasassaultedbrutally.Itishercontention

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

that,therespondentsweresuspiciousabouthercharacterwithoutany
reason.Whenshewasadmittedinthehospital,therespondentshadnot
paidanyheedandalltheexpenseswereincurredbyherparents.She
contends that, she has been thrown out of the residential home
alongwithhersonandatthisstagesheisresidinginherparentalhome
inMumbaiattheirmercy.Theapplicantcontendsthat,atpresentsheis
in dire need of monetary relief and she is requesting for issuance of
directions to her husband, respondent No.1 to pay the adequate
maintenance. It is her contention that, her husband is practicing
advocate and earning Rs.50,000/ per month. Her fatherinlaw is
gettingpensiontothetuneofRs.22,000/permonth.Therespondents
arehavingagriculturallandattheirnativeplaceandaregettingincome
of Rs.1 Lac per annum. It is her contention that, respondent No.1 is
havingcapacitytopaythemonthlymaintenance.
3.

The respondent No.1 appears to be duly served. On

21/11/2014Ld.AdvocateShri.S.A.Shaikhhadfiledanapplicationfor
adjournmentstatingthat,heishavinginstructionfromrespondentsto
appear in the case and the case be adjourned for filing reply. This
applicationitselfsuggestthat,therespondentNo.1isdulyserved.The
respondent No.1 has not filed any reply. Hence, the application has
proceededwithouthisreply.
4.

Aftergoingthroughtheallegationsandcontentionsofthe

applicantfollowingpointsariseformydetermination.Ihaverecorded
myfindingsagainsteachofthemforthereasonsgivenbelow:
POINTS
1. Does the applicant prove with prima facie

FINDINGS
Inthe

proof that, she was subjected to domestic

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

affirmative.

violence?
2. Doestheapplicantprovethat,therespondent
husbandishavingsufficientmeanstoprovide

Inthe
affirmative.

herseparatemaintenance?
3. Whethertheapplicantisentitledforthereliefs
claimed?
4. Whatorder?

Inthe
affirmative.

Asperfinalorder.
REASONS

5.

Admittedly, the applicant is legally wedded wife of the

respondent No.1 and the couple is blessed with one son. At present,
applicantisresidingathermaternalhomeandisnothavinganysource
ofincome.
AstopointNos.1to3:
6.

Allthepointsarebasedonsimilarfacts.Inordertoavoid

repetition,Ihavetakenthemformydiscussionsimultaneously.
7.

HeardLd.Advocatefortheapplicant.

8.

TheapplicanthasfiledthepetitionU/sec.12ofthePWDV

ActandisprayingthereliefsU/sec.18,19,20&22ofPWDVAct.She
hasalsorequestedforthegrantofinterimreliefU/sec.23oftheAct.Ld.
Advocatefortheapplicantsubmitsthat,theapplicantisindireneedof

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

themonetaryassistanceandforthisreasonthemonthlymaintenancebe
grantedsothattheapplicantandhersoncansurvive.
9.

Sec.23oftheActspeaksaboutthegrantofinterimandex

partorderinfavourofthevictimsofdomesticviolence. Sec.23ofPWDV
Actspeaksasfollows:
IftheMagistrateissatisfiedthat,anapplicationprima
facie discloses that, the respondent is committing, or has
committedanactofdomesticviolenceorthat,thereislikelihood
thattherespondentmaycommitanactofdomesticviolence,he
maygrantanexpartorderonthebasisofanaffidavit.
Fromtheabovementionedprovisionitiscrystalclearthat,
CourtofMagistrateempoweredtograntinterimrelieftothevictimof
domesticviolence,ifherapplicationprimafaciedisclosesthat,shewas
subjectedtodomesticviolenceorthereislikelihoodthat,shemaybe
subjectedtodomesticviolence.
10.

In the present case the applicant claims to be legally

weddedwifeoftherespondentNo.1andhermarriagewassolemnized
on 13/5/2011 in Uttar Pradesh. The couple is blessed with child
'SomanshSingh'.Theapplicantintheinitialpartofherapplicationhas
statedthat,therespondentNo.1andherinlawswerehonouredatthe
timeofhermarriage.TheamountofRs.2lacsincash,goldornaments
andothervaluablearticlesweregiventotherespondents.Shecontends
that,afterthemarriageshecametoresideathermatrimonialhomeat
AvasVikasColony,Ballia,U.P.andshefoundthat,therepresentation
madebytherespondentsthat,thematrimonialhouseistheiracquired
propertywasfoundtobeuntrue.Theapplicantcontendsthat,thesaid

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

matrimonialhomewasrentedpremises.Sheallegesthat,withinaweek
therespondentshadstartedtodemandRs.50,000/fromherparental
homeandthemotorcycle.Onthatcountshewastorturedandharassed.
Shewaslockedintheroomandwasnotallowedtogoanywhere.The
respondentshadstartedtoforcinghertomakedemandtoherparents
fortheamountandonthatcountshewasbrutallyassaulted.
11.

Theapplicantfurtherallegesthat,shewaspregnantandon

that count the respondents had started to suspect her character. The
respondent brotherinlaw used to return in late night under the
influenceofalcoholandwasmakingfalseallegationsagainsther.When
she was being beaten by her husband the other respondents did not
intervene. The applicant contends that, the sisterinlaws were also
harassingandtorturingherandshewasforcedtoprepareteaandfood
sometimeinmidnight.
12.

Theapplicantfurtherallegesthat,shehadfallensickbut

the respondents had not provided her medical treatment. They were
again and again demanding cash amount and motorcycle. On
01/2/2012herfatherhadvisitedhermatrimonialhomeandshehad
returnedtohermaternalhome.ShewastakentoDr.C.M.Chaubeand
due to weakness she had to undergo treatment. She contends that,
meanwhile she was treated in her pregnancy by her parents. The
treatmentwasprovidedinBhabhahospitalinMumbaiandhersonwas
bornon08/9/2012.Fromthecontentionsoftheapplicantitappears
that,the respondents had apologizesbefore her parentsandshe was
taken for cohabitation. Within 15 days she found that, there was no
changeinthebehaviouroftherespondentsandshewasagainsubjected
to harassment. She contends that, the cruel behaviour of the

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

respondentsreachedtoitsclimaxwhenshewasconfinedinaroom.She
was not provided with food and milk for child. Again and again the
respondentsweredemandingmoneyfromherparents.On24/7/2014
theapplicanthadreturnedtoherparentalhome.Sheresidedtherefor
20days.On13/8/2014shereturnedtohermatrimonialhomebutshe
wasnotallowedtoenterintothehouse.Theapplicantandhersonwere
thrownoutofthehouseandtheapplicanthadreturnedtohermaternal
home.Atpresent,theapplicantisresidingwithherparentsatKhar(E),
Mumbai.
13.

To counter the allegations the respondent No.1 who is

advocatehasnotcomebeforethecourtandhasnotfiledanyreply.Ld.
AdvocateS.A.Shaikh,on21/11/2014hadfiledanapplicationonbehalf
of the respondentsfor adjournmentand it wasgranted.This goesto
showthat,therespondentsareknowingaboutthependencyofthecase.
TherespondentNo.1whoisadvocateisknowingconsequencesofnot
appearingbeforethecourt.Atthisstage,itisrequiredtobementioned
that,therespondenthusbandisknowingtheconsequencesofhisnon
appearanceandtheprobableorderwhichmaybepassedbythecourt.
14.

The allegations levelled by the applicant against the

respondents are required to be accepted. The application prima facie

discloses that, the applicant was subjected to domestic violence. The
allegations levelled against the respondents falls within the ambit of
Sec.3ofthePWDVActwhichdefinesthetermdomesticviolence.It
appearsthat,theapplicantwassubjectedtodomesticviolenceforillegal
demandofmoney.Shewasdeprivedofloveandcare.Therespondents
have not provided medical treatment to applicant and her son. The
respondentsweresubjectingthecharacteroftheapplicantandallthese

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

thinksandallegationsleadstobelievethat,theapplicantwasrepeatedly
harassedandtortured.
15.

TheHon'bleBombayHighCourtincaseMarutis/o.Devaji

Lande Vs. Sau. Gangubai Maruti Lande reported in All MR (Cri.)

3098 has observed that, the Protection of Women From Domestic
Violence Act was brought into the force to provide for more effective
protectiontotherightsofthewomenguaranteedundertheConstitutionof
India,whoarevictimsofviolenceofanycountoccurringwithinthefamily
and any matters connected therewith or incidentally thereof. Thus, the
womenwhohasbeenindomesticrelationship,whoissubjectedtodomestic
violence by the respondent i.e. her husband, can apply U/sec.12 of the
PWDVAct,asaaggrievedpersonandseekordersundertheActsuchas
maintenance,protectionorderetc.Itisobservedthat,therespondentin
suchapplicationpursuanttothecomplaintunderthePWDVActcannotbe
allowedtodefeattheprovisionsofActbyconditionallydeprivinghiswife
orapplicantwithwhomhewasindomesticrelationshipfromthebenefits
undertheAct.Theseobservationsareperfectlyapplicabletothepresent
setoffact.Theapplicanthasprovedwithprimafacieproofthat,shewas
subjectedtodomesticviolence.
16.

Theapplicantcontendsthat,therespondenthusbandisan

advocateandearningRs.50,000/permonth.Itishercontentionthat,
herfatherinlawisgettingpensionofRs.22,000/andfamilyishaving
agriculturallanditcomesincomeofRs.1lac.Therespondenthusband
beinganadvocateishavingcapacitytomaintaintheapplicantandto
provide her adequate maintenance. It appears that, the other
respondentsarenotdependentontheincomeofrespondentNo.1.The
applicantbywayofthisapplicationisprayingchildexpensestothetune

C.C.No.50/DV/2014

of Rs.5,000/ and amount of Rs.10,000/ for household expenses.

Consideringthebasicneedoftheapplicantwhoisnothavinganysource
ofincomeandtheearningcapacityofrespondentNo.1,Iconcludewith
the findings that, the amount of Rs.10,000/ per month shall be
adequate quantum. The respondent No.1 is duty bound to pay the
amount of maintenance from the date of the application. While
awardingthequantumofRs.10,000/Ihaveconsideredthebasicneed
oftheapplicantandherson.
17.

Inviewofaboveobservation,Ianswerallthepointsinthe

affirmativeandproceedtopassfollowingorder.
ORDER
1.

Applicationispartlyallowed.

2.

TherespondentNo.1shallpaymonthlymaintenanceatthe

rateofRs.10,000/(Rs.TenThousandOnly)totheapplicantfromthe
dateoffilingoftheapplication.
3.

TherespondentNo.1shallpaytheamountofRs.2,000/to

theapplicanttowardsthecostoftheapplication.
4.

Thecopyoforderbegiventotheapplicantandrespondent

No.1freeofcostontheirdemand.
5.

Thecopyoforderbesenttotheconcernedpolicestation

andprotectionofficerforperusalandinformation.
(Orderdeliveredandpronouncedinopencourt.)

Mumbai,
Date:12/1/2015.
KCK.

Sd/
(R.N.Ambatkar),
MetropolitanMagistrate,
32ndCourt,Bandra,Mumbai.