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

2015 Supreme(Bom) 1584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
C. V. BHADANG, J.
Shri Prassada Vinaica Fatorpencar – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Roshnee Bhana Fatorpecar – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2015
Decided On : 06.08.2015

Advocates Appeared:
Shri S. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. Furtado, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri John Abreu Lobo, Advocate for the Respondent.

The court's decision emphasized the need for evidence-based determination of maintenance and expenses, taking into account the circumstances and the shared household status.

Headnote:

Domestic Violence Act - Maintenance - Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - 12

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife, with the wife filing proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming maintenance, cost of litigation, and alternate accommodation.

Finding of the Court:

The court modified the order of interim maintenance and litigation expenses, reducing the amount from Rs.38,000 to Rs.25,000 per month and confirming the expenses at Rs.6,000 per month. The court also set aside the order directing the petitioner to provide residential accommodation at Mapusa.

Issues: Dispute over the quantum of maintenance, litigation expenses, and residential accommodation for the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence presented and found that a reasonable amount towards interim maintenance and litigation expenses could be granted pending the disposal of the case. The court also noted that the respondent had never stayed in the shared household and temporarily occupying such residence, leading to the modification of the order for residential accommodation.

Final Decision: The impugned order was modified, reducing the interim maintenance and confirming the litigation expenses, setting aside the order for residential accommodation, and keeping the rival contentions of the parties open to be agitated before the learned Magistrate.

JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Lobo, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the original respondent is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2014. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner has only been partly allowed, thereby modifying the order dated 24.07.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, in a case under the Domestic Violence Act.

3. The brief facts are that, the parties are husband and wife. The respondent is from South Africa and is also a national of the said Country. The respondent is staying alongwith her old aged mother in South Africa. It appears that after marriage, disputes and differences arose between the parties. The respondent filed proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa, claiming various reliefs including maintenance, cost of litigation and alternate accommodation. It appears that by an interim order dated 24.07.2014, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.38,000/-per month, to the respondent from the date of the application, alongwith Rs.6,000/-per month, towards cost of litigation. The petitioner was also directed to provide the respondent, alternate accommodation of the same level as the shared household (a flat in Akar Heights), either on ownership or on rental basis. This was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge found that the order as regards grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.38,000/-per month and cost of litigation at the rate of Rs.6,000/-per month, was legal and proper. However, the learned Sessions Judge partly modified the order as regards alternate accommodation (of the same level as the shared household). Instead, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner, to provide the respondent alternate accommodation at Mapusa, taking into account the standard of living of the respondent. The order was modified on finding that the respondent was not shown to have resided in the shared household at Akar Heights and she is required to come to India and occupy the residential premises temporarily for a limited period. Feeling aggrieved, this petition is filed.

4. I have heard Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lobo, the learned Counsel for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned orders.

5. It is submitted by Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order as regards grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.38,000/-is total arbitrary and illegal, particularly, in the absence of any material to show the income of the petitioner. It is submitted that although, the petitioner is in real estate business, in a suit filed by the respondent, there is an order by which the petitioner is restrained from transferring or creating third party interest in various properties, as a result of which, the petitioner is precluded from doing his business. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing payment of Rs.38,000/-as interim maintenance is only based on some entries, in the Bank Account of the respondent, on the basis of which it was claimed that the petitioner had paid these amounts, to the respondent by way of maintenance. It is submitted that the quantum of the maintenance granted, as also the quantum of litigation expenses are exorbitant. Even, insofar as the residential accommodation at Mapusa is concerned, it is submitted that once, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the respondent never resided in the shared household and she only occasionally comes to India and would be tempor














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
whatsapp-icon Back to top