SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Bom) 337

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. SAVANT
Ann Menezes
Versus
Shahajan Mohammad
Criminal Writ Petition No. 44 of 2009
Decided on : 04-03-2010

Advocates appeared:
For The Petitioners:A. D. Bhobe, Advocate.
For The Respondent:----

Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 19 - Alternate accommodation - Wife residing in rented premise and paying Rs. 1,000/- as rent - Factum of residing in rented premises and paying rent was corroborated with other evidence - Husband not resided with wife - Held - Direction for securing alternate accommodation cannot be issued - It would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to wife towards the payment of rent.

       Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 20 - Loss of earning - Monetary relief - Petitioner was working as a teacher in Nursery School and also supplemented income by giving tuition and she was earning Rs. 500/- from that - Husband stopped petitioner from given tuition from 2003 to 2005 - Held - It would be fit to award Rs. 10,000/- as monetary loss.

Judgment :

The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 09.06.2008, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-3, South Goa, Margao, by which Order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent herein came to be allowed and the Order dated 05.11.2007, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., in so far as directing/ordering the Respondent herein to secure an alternate accommodation to the Petitioner and granting Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings, was quashed and set aside. However, the rest of the reliefs granted by the learned J.M.F.C., were maintained.

2. The facts in brief can be stated thus :

The Petitioner, herein, and the Respondent were married in the year 1995. The Petitioner converted herself to Islam. The registration of the marriage was done on 22.06.1994. Out of the said marriage, a boy child was born on 06.12.1994. After marriage, the Petitioner and the Respondent firstly stayed at Bogda, then in the MPT Colony in the accommodation of the Petitioner's father. Till 1996, the relations between the Petitioner and the Respondent were normal. However, thereafter, the Respondent subjected the Petitioner to domestic violence. It is alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent that the Respondent had extra marital affairs with one Babita and had a child from the said Babita. It was also alleged by her, that the Respondent had also another extra marital affair with one Hasina, whom he married and out of which wedlock, one child Furqan Mohammed was born. It was alleged that the Respondent was staying with the said Hasina after he left the Petitioner. It was also alleged that the Respondent used to abuse her emotionally and verbally by casting aspersion/accusation on her conduct and character and used to insult her for not bringing dowry and used to make demeaning, humiliating remarks. It was also alleged that the Respondent failed to provide money for maintaining her and her child and also failed to provide food, clothes, medicines, etc. It was also alleged that he did not allow her to take up employment, nor paid rent, electricity and water bills, etc. It was further alleged that the Respondent, by retaining the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- borrowed from the father of the Petitioner, demanded dowry by seeking to appropriate the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the same. On the aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner herein filed an application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (the said Act, for short). The said application came to be numbered as Maintenance Appln. no. 3/M/2007/D. The said application was filed through the Protection Officer, one Shekhar Prabhudessai, with request to take cognizance of the domestic incident report. The Petitioner in the said application sought Protection under Order 18 of the said Act, a Residence Order under Section 19 of the Act by seeking directions against the Respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation and pay rent for the same. The Petitioner sought Monetary Relief under Section 20 of the Act as follows :

(i) Medical expenses : Rs. 5,000/-

(ii) Loss of Earnings : Rs. 36,000/-,

(iii) Seeking direction against the respondent to pay the expenses of food, clothes and other basic necessities, an amount of Rs.6000/- per month

(iv) Household expenses, an amount of Rs.1000/- per month

(v) School fees and related expenses of her son, an amount of Rs.1000/- per month.

3. In support of her case, the Petitioner examined three witnesses i.e. she herself as Pw.1, her sister Shenaz as Pw.2 and her son Sohail as Pw.3. The Respondent-husband, in support of his defence also examined two witnesses i.e. himself as Dw.1 and one Chintamani as Dw.2. The learned J.M.F.C., on a consideration of the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the Petitioner has proved that the Respondent had extra marital affairs with Hasina and Babita, from whom he had also begotten children. The learned J.M.F.C., therefore, held that the Petitioner must have underg












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top