Dismissed

Suvarna Sarjerao Potdar through Power of Attorney Girish Potdar v. Prakash Shankar Potdar and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2020WP/89/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court held that the impugned order could not be alleged as perverse and factual findings at interim stage were not to be interfered with.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suvarna Sarjerao Potdar through Power of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

3-WP-89-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2017

¶5

SUVARNA SARJERAO POTDAR )...PETITIONER

¶6

V/s.

¶7

PRAKASH SHANKAR POTDAR AND ORS.)...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Girish Potdar appearing in person.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM:A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE:13th JANUARY 2020

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1Heard Mr.Girish Potdar - son of the petitioner. He

¶12

argued that the petitioner ought to have been granted interim
relief as prayed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pethvadgaon, in view of provisions of Section 2(q) of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and particularly the
proviso thereto. He further submitted that the petitioner is an
“aggrieved person” falling in the definition of the said term as
defined by Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from

¶13

avk 1/3

¶14

3-WP-89-2017.doc

¶15

Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and therefore, the learned trial
Magistrate was incorrect in rejecting the application for interim
relief, and consequently, same error is committed by the learned
Appellate Court.

¶16

2I have considered the submissions so advanced and
also perused the written notes of arguments as well as the
impugned order passed by the Appellate Court.

¶17

3In the matter of Hiral P. Harsora and Others vs. Kusum

¶18

Narottamdas Harsora and Others1 proviso to section 2(q) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stands
quashed and set aside. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court after
scrutiny of the matter has held thus in paragraph 7 of the
impugned judgment :

¶19

7……..On the contrary, the pleadings clearly
demonstrate that there was separate residence of
the applicant and the respondents from the very
inception. Deceased husband of the applicant and
his brother constructed their separate rooms and

¶20

1 LAW (SC)-2016-10-14

¶21

avk 2/3

¶22

3-WP-89-2017.doc

¶23

they were having their separate possession. Such
separate possession continued even after his death.
Thus, to attract any of the provisions of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
there must be a “shared household” and the
applicant must be residing in “domestic
relationship” in such shared household as defined
under the Act. These two essential requirements are
absent in the application.”

¶24

4In this petition, what is challenged is confirmation of
rejection of an application for interim relief in an appeal under
Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur.
The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse and illegal. The
finding of facts recorded at the interim stage of the appeal cannot
be interfered with in writ jurisdiction of this court.

¶25

5The petition is devoid of merits and therefore the same

¶26

is dismissed.

¶27

avk 3/3

Suvarna Sarjerao Potdar through Power of Attorney Girish Potdar v. Prakash Shankar Potdar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suvarna Sarjerao Potdar through Power of Attorney Girish Potdar v. Prakash Shankar Potdar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Ankush Masurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subodh Vasudev Mulye Vs Deepak Gunpal Kunnure and Anr.

Subodh Vasudev Mulye Vs Deepak Gunpal Kunnure and Anr.

Muktar @ Mukhtiyar S/O. Mohamed Bashir Vs Hamja Mahamad Malpekar Prop. of Al Amin Construction and Ors.

Central Bureau of Investigation Anti -Corruption Branch Vs Ashok B. Rajani Partner of M/S. Altogether and Ors.

Samir Arvind Kadam and Ors. Vs Swapnaja Samir Kadam and Anr.