Dismissed

Ramnarayan Shitlaprasad Singh v. Meetaba Ramnarayan Sigh and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2013APL/80/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act appealing a restraint order, the High Court found a prima facie case due to misconduct violations. The court held the impugned order, restraining the husband from the shared residence, was correct as mediation failed, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; restraint order allowing respondent access to shared residence upheld.

Ramnarayan Shitlaprasad Singh Vs Meetaba Ramnarayan Sigh… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2013)

APL.80/2013(2)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2013

Ramnarayan Singh

...Applicant

Vs.

Meetaba Ramnarayan Singh & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Prakash Naik i/b. Mr. Vinod Singh & Mr. Arun Tiwari Advocates for the Applicant Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the state

¶12

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 21^ST JANUARY, 2013

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

There have been disputes between the applicant and the respondent No.1, who lived together. The respondent No.1 has filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). An order of maintenance came to be passed in favour of respondent No.1 as well as the son of the parties.

¶15

In an appeal filed by the applicant against the order of maintenance, the maintenance against respondent No.1 has been stayed. Maintenance of the son has been continued.

¶16

The initial order was also restraining the applicant from creating third party rights in respect of the shared residence.

¶17

Thereafter another application came to be filed by the

¶18

APL.80/2013(2)

¶19

¶20

respondent No.1 under the DV Act restraining the applicant from entering upon the shared residence on the ground of physical assault, abuse and stopping of basic facilities in the house. It was her case that he pressurised her to withdraw the complaint under the DV Act.

¶21

An incident of physical abuse has been narrated by her. That is of the applicant coming into the bedroom of respondent No.1 herein with a cricket bat and with which he broke the table computer and threatened to burn and tear all the clothes of respondent No.1 herein. That violence was sought to be restrained. The applicant made out a prima facie case by certain photographs. The photographs have been produced before this Court also. The photocopies of those photographs are annexed to the petition herein also as a part of the application of the wife.

¶22

The photographs do show the screen of the computer having been broken. The photographs also show the applicant with a cricket bat. Photographs further show the applicant on his bed with a cricket bat next to him. The applicant is in the same attire in all the photographs. Hence it is seen that the photographs have been taken at the same time to record the same transaction.

¶23

The learned Magistrate passed a restraint order.

¶24

That order came to be challenged in appeal before the

¶25

APL.80/2013(2)

¶26

¶27

Sessions Court. There was an interim stay pending appeal. The parties were referred to mediation. The interim order, though allowing the applicant entry into the shared residence, restrained him from entering into the bedroom of respondent No.1 without her consent until final orders. It also restrained the applicant against annoying or insulting respondent No.1. The order warns that in case of any violation the stay would be vacated.

¶28

Violation is shown. Re-application is made. The impugned order again restrains respondent No.1 from entering into the shared residence by vacating the order of stay pending the appeal. The impugned order records that the respondent No.1 herein feels danger to her life at the hands of the applicant and the mediation has failed.

¶29

The interim order is, therefore, only for the protection of satisfying of respondent No.1. It is only pending the appeal. The appeal is posted for hearing on 5^th February, 2013. The mediation can always be undertaken by parties pending the appeal once again. The restraint order, which could have been passed at the initial stage itself is seen to be prima facie merited in view of the violation of the order of vacating the stay. Hence the impugned order is correct. It is not required to be interfered with.

¶30

Criminal application is dismissed.

¶31

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Ramnarayan Shitlaprasad Singh v. Meetaba Ramnarayan Sigh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnarayan Shitlaprasad Singh v. Meetaba Ramnarayan Sigh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anagha Ajay More Vs Ajay Pandurang More

Babaram Chikne Vs Jayashree Babaram Chikne and Anr.

Babaram Chikne Vs Jayashree Babaram Chikne and Anr.

Vidya Arvind Bhalerao Vs Arvind Sadanand Bhalerao and Ors.

Hardik Chandrakant Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Kumar Birendra Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra