Partly allowed

Shefali Mohan Ayyangar v. Shobhana Murlidhar Ayyangar and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2021WP/2510/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the maintainability of a domestic violence complaint where the mother-in-law sought an order directing the daughter-in-law to shift from the shared household. The High Court struck off prayer clause (d) violating Section 19(1)(b) but granted liberty to the parties for expeditious disposal of other reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Prayer clause (d) directing the respondent woman to remove herself from Apartment No.1 was struck off. Liberty granted to apply for other reliefs and to amend the complaint.

Shefali Mohan Ayyangar Vs Shobhana Murlidhar Ayyangar and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2021)

1/6

WP-2510-2021 (SR.29)

Rane

9Sept,2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

Criminal W rit Petition No. 2510 Of 2021

¶7

Shefali Mohan Ayyangar .....Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Shobhana Murlidhar Ayyangar
and anr.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

* * * *

¶12

Mr. Rizwan Merchant A/W. Ms. Gayatri Gokhe and Ms.
Zainba Abdi, i/by. Rizwan Merchant & Associates,
advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Nazhat Shaike Chimte, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. A.D. Khamkhedkar, APP for State-respondent no.2.

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

¶15

 Thursday, 9th September, 2021.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1. Heard.

¶18

2. This petition challenges the maintainability of proceedings instituted by the respondents under Section 12, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from

¶19

9Sept,2021

¶20

Rane 2/6 WP-2510-2021 (SR.29)

¶21

Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called “the D.V.
proceedings” for short).

¶22

3. The proceedings were instituted by mother-in-
law against her daughter-in-law, where the following reliefs
are sought :

¶23

“a. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the
application pass the right to reside in Apartment II,
which she legally owns u/s. 17(1) and (2) of PWDV
Act;

¶24

b. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint a
protection officer for the safety of the Applicant and
directing the Respondent not to commit domestic
violence on the Applicant u/s. 18(a), (b), (d), (e),
(f) and (g) of PWDV Act;

¶25

c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the
application, be pleased to pass an order restraining
the Respondent from dispossessing or in any other
manner disturbing the possession of the Applicant
from Apartment II, whether or not the Respondent
has a legal or equitable interest in the shared
household u/s. 19(1)(a) of the PWDV Act;

3/6

WP-2510-2021 (SR.29)

Rane

9Sept,2021

d. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order
directing the Respondent to remove herself from
Apartment II and shift to Apartment I while
granting her children, Sarah & Arsh Ayyangar, the
right to reside at Apartment II at will u/s. 19(1)(b),
(c), (d), u/s. 19(2), u/s. 19(3), u/s. 19(5) u/s.
19(8) of the PWDV Act;

¶31

e. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order
directing the respondent to pay Rupees one crore as
compensation for mentally harassing and maligning
the Applicant and her family members for over 15
years.

¶32

f. For any other and further relief this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper in the interest of
justice.”

¶33

4.It may be stated;

¶34

(i) petitioner’s husband owns a flat at Dahisar
which is described as “Apartment No.2”.

¶35

(ii) Another flat at Borivali was jointly purchased
by the petitioner and her husband.

¶36

(iii) Later, husband relinquished his undivided
share in the said flat in favour of petitioner.
Therefore petitioner is owner of the flat at

4/6

WP-2510-2021 (SR.29)

9Sept,2021

Rane

Borivali. It is described as “Apartment No.1”;
and

¶42

(iv) respondent and her husband, own a flat at
Borivali and it is in possession of the respondent,
her husband and her younger son.

¶43

5. Mr. Merchant, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, would argue that provisions of Section 19(1)(b)
of the D.V. Act, empowers and enables the Magistrate to
pass a, ‘residence order’, including the directions, to the
respondent to remove himself, from the shared household;
however, directions cannot be issued against any person
who is woman. Thus, argued that, on plain reading of the
provisions of Section 19(1)(b) with proviso, prayer clause
(d) was not sustainable. All the same, learned Counsel for
the respondent, on instructions, submits that, amendment
application has been moved by the complainant, seeking
deletion of part of prayer clause (d). Statement is accepted.

¶44

6.Viewing the facts of the case and in terms of the
provisions of Section 19 of the Act, prayer, seeking removal
of the respondent from Apartment No.1 was clearly not
sustainable. Prayer in clause ‘d’ is composite prayer. Its
later part, implies that the complainant was seeking

¶45

9Sept,2021

¶46

Rane 5/6 WP-2510-2021 (SR.29)

¶47

directions, to shift her daughter-in-law to a Flat at Borivali
i.e. in Apartment No.2. This prayer being in contrast to
proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the D.V. Act, was not
sustainable.

¶48

7. Insofar as, other prayers are concerned, Mr.
Merchant, fairly submits, that he may be granted liberty to
move the trial Court for the appropriate reliefs, in respect
of other reliefs. He submitted, that the petitioner is a cancer
patient and therefore the trial Court may be directed to
decide application, if any, preferred by him, expeditiously.
In consideration of the submissions advanced by the
Counsel for the parties, following is the order;

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

(i)Prayer clause ‘d’ in D.V. Complaint No.205/DV/2017 on
the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court, Borivali,
Mumbai is struck-off.

¶51

(ii)Petitioner, is granted liberty to apply for such reliefs
before the trial Court, and if such an application is moved,
the trial Court shall decide the same as expeditiously as
possible, in accordance with law.

6/6

WP-2510-2021 (SR.29)

Rane

9Sept,2021

(iii)The complainant (respondent herein) is granted liberty
to amend the application including the prayer/s.

¶57

8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2021.09.22 16:53:36 +0530

¶59

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Shefali Mohan Ayyangar v. Shobhana Murlidhar Ayyangar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shefali Mohan Ayyangar v. Shobhana Murlidhar Ayyangar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deven Mangaldas Bhanushali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aslam Mohammed Kazi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Satish Luthra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subbirami Reddy and Ors. Vs M/S Vijay Enterprises and Anr.

Navin Mukund Prabhu and Anr. Vs Dadamiya M. Bagewadi

Bhanuben Chudgor Vs Varsha Chudgor and Anr.