The court emphasized that a compromise settlement does not erase the domestic relationship, particularly when the divorce is disputed, and reinstated the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioner-wife.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition is filed by the wife challenging order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2021, by which the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 06/03/2021 in Criminal Case No.11/DV/2019 is set aside.

2. The petitioner-wife instituted proceedings for domestic violence by pleading that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 16/05/1994 in accordance with the Islamic Law and, after the marriage, she started to cohabit with her husband in her matrimonial home. However, on account of discord, she instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the D.V. Act"), but on the respondent offering a settlement, she withdrew the proceedings under the D.V. Act filed by her before the Family Court at Bandra. Under the said compromise, they started residing together, but as there was a neglect on the part of the husband, she moved an application under Sec. 23 of the D.V. Act, claiming interim maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month for herself and a rent of Rs.25,000.00 along with interim compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs.

3. The application was contested by the respondent-husband by denying the domestic relationship and it was specifically stated that he divorced the petitioner, way back in the year 1997 through a Kazi, as per the Muslim Shariyat Law and, since then, he is residing separately and the petitioner is residing with her father on the given address. He submits that an amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 was paid by him towards settlement of previous proceedings instituted vide Application No.110/DV/2015 under the D.V. Act. In the wake of the rival pleadings and also considering the contentions of the respondent-husband that he has no source of income to pay maintenance to his wife, as he does not have any permanent job, the learned Magistrate, after referring to various authoritative pronouncements, where despite separation of the husband and wife, the maintenance came to be awarded to the wife under the D.V. Act, allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.7,000.00 per month from the date of filing of the application. The maintenance towards the daughter was denied since she attained majority. The prayer for interim rent or alternative accommodation as well as interim compensation was, however, rejected.

4. The respondent-husband approached the appellate court by instituting an appeal under Sec. 29 of the D.V. Act and though a stand was taken that he had suffered a paralytic attack and was unable to attend to any work, the court found that the appellant is an able bodied person and there is no indication that he cannot perform the job of a taxi driver. His plea was, therefore, declined and as far as the other ground that his relationship was severed by a Talaq in the year 1997 itself, and by referring to a settlement effected earlier, in the first D.V. proceedings, the appellate court arrived at a conclusion that since the settlement had occurred, the domestic violence, which was alleged prior to the alleged divorce, cannot be taken into consideration. Learned Judge records that in the said proceedings, a settlement was arrived at and the petitioner has withdrawn the proceedings and a pursis was also filed in which the wife accepted Rs.1,50,000.00. He submits that the pursis does not state that the parties are going to co-habit together. It is, on this ground, that the order of the Magistrate is set aside by the appellate court. Pertinent to note that in paragraph No.12 of the said order, the learned Judge makes the following observations:

"12. It is also to be noted that according to the appellant, he gave divorce ('Talaq') to the respondent, as per Shariat Act, in the year 1997. The translated copy of deed of divorce is also filed on record It was also raised in the proceeding before the Family Court. The Family Court had decided the said proceeding in