The order which is challenged in this Petition is of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24^th March, 2004 in Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2003 which came to be filed to challenge the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vashi passed on 11^th October, 2002 in M.A. No.8 of 2001.

¶19

Both these orders are prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Respondent contended that she was the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The learned Magistrate held that she has not proved her status as wife and rejected her application for maintenance U/s.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code which required her to prove that she

¶20

¶21

Cr. WP No.1226_2004

¶22

was the wife of the Respondent.

¶23

In revision that order came to be set aside and the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- p.m. which the husband has challenged.

¶24

Counsel on behalf of the husband drew my attention to the observation and findings of the learned Magistrate to show the relationship between the parties. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that the parties were not lawfully married.

¶25

Since in view of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the parties who live together even without lawful wedlock render themselves amendable to the Act, the woman would be entitled to be maintained if she was otherwise not having any source of income. That is the very purpose of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and precisely a relationship, such as in this case is sought to be covered thereunder.

¶26

It may be mentioned that there was no case of either of the parties that they lived together or did not live together. The only dispute between the parties was with regard to solemnization of their marriage. Both were married earlier. The wife was married to one Laxman Raja Pujari on 15^th April, 1979. Her marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce on 11^th January, 1983. The husband was married to one Asha Tawade on 3^rd December, 1987. The Respondent in this case contended that she married the Petitioner on 24^th May, 1990 which has not been accepted by the learned Magistrate and which order is set aside by the Sessions Court.

¶27

Upon the challenge to the order of the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- p.m. by the husband in this Petition under the interim order of this Court the husband was directed to deposit Rs.500/- p.m. Counsel on his behalf states that the amount has been deposited until

Cr. WP No.1226_2004

December, 2012.

It is seen that this issue is not material for the determination of the amount of maintenance any longer. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the Respondent herein would be entitled to an order of maintenance. The extent of the maintenance would have to be determined on merits. Both the orders have now become infructuous to that extent.

¶32

The wife would have to prosecute her application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 de novo since that would not require her to prove her marriage. The amount of maintenance payable to her alone would have been to be determined in such petition.

¶33

It may be mentioned that Rs.500/- p.m. is like throwing a dog a bone. There can be no case in the city of Mumbai where Rs.500/- p.m. would be too much to be paid to any women in any relationship. Since such a meager amount has been directed to be deposited and is deposited, interest of justice demands that the Respondent be allowed to withdraw the amount which is deposited. She shall file her separate petition / application for maintenance or any other reliefs as required as per law namely Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 after which alone further payment of maintenance may be done as directed.

¶34

Criminal Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. 12. The application to withdraw all the amounts filed by wife is also disposed off. The husband shall further be entitled to recover the amount received by the wife in accordance with law, if permitted by any further order in any further proceedings.

¶35

( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Chandrashekhar Deju Amin v. Sunanda Chandrashekhar Amin

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandrashekhar Deju Amin v. Sunanda Chandrashekhar Amin

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda, Vs M/S.Regal Battery Corporation, and Shaikh Mohd. Azam

L and T Finance Limited Vs M/S.P.K. Earthmovers and Anr.

Shanta Balkrishna Sathe and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Vishnu Sathe

Mrs. Sonali Agarwal and Ors. Vs Sanjay Agarwal

Anita Kulkarni Vs Milind M. Kulkarni and Ors.

Daksha C. Gala Vs Chetan C. Gala