The court emphasizes the urgent need for interim residential protection in domestic violence cases, balancing obligations of the parties amidst lease termination disputes.

1. Heard.
The present Revision Application assail the order dated 20/3/2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in a Criminal Appeal preferred by the wife, when the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court Mumbai, refused to grant an interim order on 18/3/2023 and issued notice to respondent husband.

2. On hearing the respective counsel for the parties, it is evident that in the DV proceedings filed by the wife before the Metropolitan Magistrate, an application was moved seeking ex parte interim order as regards the residence, in the background of the fact that the wife along with her daughter, aged 9 years old, was residing in a flat situated at Mahalaxmi, Mumbai and it was projected before the Magistrate that on account of failure to pay the monthly license fee, the landlady had issued notice terminating the lease.
Pertinent to note that the lease deed of the said flat was executed in the name of the husband and it is valid upto December, 2023.
Since the lease was sought to be terminated and the vacant possession was sought by landlady by 26/3/2023, an urgency was expressed and exparte order was prayed for.

3. As no such order was granted, but only notice was issued, the wife filed an appeal before Sessions Court and apparently, by an ex - parte order the respondent husband is directed to pay the rent amount for the month of February - 2023, March - 2023, April - 2023, May - 2023 as an interim arrangement and the Magistrate is directed to decide the application, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order passed by the Appellate Court. It is also directed that it shall also take into consideration this amount, while allowing or rejecting the application on its own merits.

4. During the previous hearing, a proposal was advanced and the consensus was reached between the parties, which I recorded in the order dated 19/04/2023.
The learned counsel for the wife has placed on record a clarification offered by the landlady and I expected Ms. Irani to obtain instructions upon the said communication and it is apparent that no consensus could be arrived as regards the arrangement agreeable to both, as the proposal coming from landlady is not acceptable to the petitioner husband and the choice given for an alternative accommodation offered by the husband, is not acceptable to the wife.

5. However, fairly Ms. Irani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced the cheques worth a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- which would clear the rent for two months, since it is informed that the monthly rent of the flat was agreed to be Rs. 1,05,000/-
Ms. Irani would submit that deposit in form of Rs. 2,85,000/- is lying with the land lady.

6. Whether the termination of lease was justified or not, and if at all, it is found to be justified, whether the wife is entitled for a relief of continuing in the same premises and whether she deserve an interim order to prevent the termination of lease, or whether she can be asked to shift in the alternative premises, to avoid the unnecessary demand of amount, is a matter, which will have to be ultimately determined by the Metropolitan Magistrate, as on 18/3/2023, notice was issued to respondent husband and no interim relief was granted.
A proper course of action in the aforesaid circumstances would be to direct the respondent husband to deposit further rent of two months in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, within a period of two weeks from today. In the meantime, the Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed to hear the application at Exhibit - 1 filed by the wife seeking interim protection order, as regards her residence.
Upon determining whether the reason for termination of the lease is justified, since it attributed to the husband having failed to deposit the monthly rent, th