IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

29 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 550 OF 2016

Chhaya W/o Vilas Choudhari,

Age : 34 years, Occu.: Household,

R/o.: C/o.: Laxman Kadu Mahajan,

Khadka Road, Ramdaswadi, Bhusawal,

Tq. Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon.

….

Petitioner

Versus

1.

Vilas s/o Prabhakar Choudhari,

Age : 54 years, Occu.: Photographer,

R/o.: Near Shrikrushna Mandir,

Budhwar Peth, Savda, Tq. Raver,

District : Jalgaon.

2.

The State of Maharashtra

(Deleted in view of order

dated 17.07.2018)

… Respondents

...

Mr. D. A. Bhide, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. D. R. Adhav, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

…

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 18.02.2019

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3.

The learned advocate for respondent No.1 waives service.

2

29 wp 550-16

With consent of both sides the matter is heard finally at the

stage of admission.

4.

In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the wife of the

respondent No.1 is impugning the order passed by the Judicial

Magistrate F. C. in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1116

of 2009 dated 4 July 2015 and the dismissal of Criminal Appeal

No. 41 of 2015 preferred by her, by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhusawal by the judgment and order dated 11

March 2016.

5.

The application was preferred by the petitioner under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 ( hereinafter 'D. V. Act'.) inter alia with the

averments that the marriage was solemnized on 29 May 2004

and the couple had begotten a son. She was maintained

properly for the initial period, but since thereafter she was

illtreated on account of demand of the in-laws for money. The

3

29 wp 550-16

respondent also once tried to strangulate her. He also

threatened her of dire consequences. Consequently, she filed

miscellaneous criminal application claiming maintenance under

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate had awarded her

Rs.700/- per month for herself and Rs.200/- per month for the

child. Since the respondent refused to take her for

cohabitation and she had to spend for the medical treatment of

the son, she claimed following reliefs :

I)

Preventing him from trying to communicate with her

Section 18-D of the D. V. Act;

II)

Preventing him from transferring movable and

immovable properties under Section 18-E;

III)

Making provision for her separate residence and rent

therefor under Section 19 (1)(F);

IV)

Asking him to execute a bond as a security for

preventing him from committing domestic violence as

contemplated under Section 19-E;

V)

For return of Streedhan as contemplated under

Section 19 (8); and

4

29 wp 550-16

VI)

Monitory relief under Section 20 claiming an amount

of Rs.8,000/- per month for the treatment of the son and Rs.

70,000/- by way of compensation under Section 20 for the

mental and physical harassment meted out to her.

6.

Application was contested by the respondent obviously on

the ground that there was no domestic violence and that he

was ever ready and willing to maintain the son. He was even

ready to spend for his medical treatment. She was cohabiting

with her parents on her own and therefore, there was no

domestic violence.

7.

After conducting hearing, the Magistrate by the impugned

judgment and order held that there was a domestic violence

and also held her entitled to various reliefs under Sections 18,

19, 20 and 22 and directed the respondent inter alia to pay her

Rs. 500/- per month for securing alternate accommodation and

Rs.70,000/- in lump-sum by way of compensation for the

medical treatment of the son. The learned Magistrate also

5

29 wp 550-16

directed him not to commit any domestic violence. He also

awarded Rs.1,000/- by way of costs.

8.

Being aggrieved,