Dismissed

Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav and Anr. v. Gaumatidevi Rammurat Yadav and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2022WP/2187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act. The court held that since a statutory remedy of appeal exists under Section 29 of the Act, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Petitioners are directed to prefer an appeal instead.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Writ Petitions stood disposed of; Petitioners directed to prefer an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav and Anr. Vs Gaumatidevi Rammurat… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

18-WP-2187-2021-with-WP-2188-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2187 OF 2021

¶4

1. Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav
 Aged about 43 years, Occ : Services
2. Mrs. Chanda Vinod Yadav
 Aged about 42 years.
 Both are Indian Inhabitant Residing at
 Room No. 17, Ground Floor, Satyaki Nagar,
 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Lower Parel,
 Mumbai – 400 013.… Petitioners
Versus
1. Gaumatidevi Rammurat Yadav
 of Mumbai, Adult, Aged about 68 years
 claiming to be residing at Room No.17
 situated at Room No.17, Ground floor,
 Satyaki Nagar, Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.
 Whereas in fact residing at Songra
 Tal Machlisahar Dist. Jaunpur (U.P.)
2. The State of Maharashtra...Respondents
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2188 OF 2021
1. Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav
 Aged about 43 years, Occ : Services
2. Mrs. Chanda Vinod Yadav
 Aged about 42 years.
 Both are Indian Inhabitant Residing at
 Room No. 17, Ground Floor, Satyaki Nagar,
 Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Lower Parel,
 Mumbai – 400 013.… Petitioners
Versus
1. Gomatidevi Rammurat Yadav
 of Mumbai, Adult, Aged about 68 years

¶5

Sajakali Jamadar

¶6

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2022.06.18 16:00:32 +0530

¶7

1 of 6

¶8

18-WP-2187-2021-with-WP-2188-2021.doc

¶9

 claiming to be residing at Room No.17
 situated at Room No.17, Ground floor,
 Satyaki Nagar, Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.
 Whereas in fact residing at Songra
 Tal Machlisahar Dist. Jaunpur (U.P.)

¶10

2. The State of Maharashtra

¶11

Mr. Anand Mishra i/by Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, Advocate for the
Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Ajay Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.2 – State.

¶14

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 17th JUNE, 2022.

¶15

PER COURT:

¶16

The Respondent No.1 in both these petitions is the mother of Petitioner No.1. She has initiated the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶17

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai vide order dated 8^th March, 2021 has disposed of the proceedings in C.C. No.82/DV/2014 by passing the following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

“ 1.The respondent No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-
per month to the applicant woards maintenance amount from
the date of restoration of original application after dismissed
in default.

¶20

2 of 6

¶21

Sajakali Jamadar

¶22

18-WP-2187-2021-with-WP-2188-2021.doc

¶23

2.The respondents jointly and severally shall pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation to the applicant, within a period of one month from the date of this order.

¶24

3.The respondents shall remove themselves from the house room No.17 standing in the name of husband of applicant Rammurat Bhagwatidin Yadav within a period of one month.

¶25

4.The respondent are prohibited from causing any kind of
violence to the applicant themselves or through nobody else.

¶26

5.Copy of order be send to concern police station for
execution.

¶27

6.Copy of order be provided to the applicant free of cost.

¶28

7.No order as to cost.”

¶29

Criminal Writ Petition No.2187 of 2021 has been preferred before this Court challenging the order dated 16^th January, 2021 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 13^th Court, Dadar, Mumbai forfeiting the right of the Petitioners to participate in the further proceeding.

¶30

It is pertinent to note that, by subsequent order which is under challenge in Writ Petition No.2188 of 2021, the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 by which the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act have come to an end.

¶31

This Court vide order dated 6^th October, 2021 granted interim relief qua clause No.3 of order dated 8^th March, 2021. The said order was subsequently vacated on 14^th December, 2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 17^th January, 2022, the interim relief granted on 6^th October, 2021 was restored.

¶32

3 of 6

¶33

Sajakali Jamadar

¶34

18-WP-2187-2021-with-WP-2188-2021.doc

¶35

The Petitioners in both these petitions have filed additional affidavit in support of the petitions. The Petitioners have contended that vide order dated 3^rd September, 2015 passed by the Civil Court, the defendants therein were restrained from disturbing the plaintiff’s joint possession. The plaintiff in the said suit was the Petitioner No.1 in this proceeding. It is submitted that in spite of order of the Civil Court, the learned Magistrate had passed an order directing the Petitioner to vacate the premises.

¶36

Learned counsel for Respondent submitted that the petitions are not maintainable before this Court. In Writ Petition No.2188 of 2021, the trial Court has passed the final order and the Petitioners ought to have resorted to remedy of appeal provided under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. It is submitted that the order of maintenance has not been fully complied by the Petitioners. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for Petitioner are urged for the first time.

¶37

It is relevant to note that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate had come to an end by final order dated 8^th March, 2021. The Petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section 29 of the Act. The learned counsel for Petitioners contended that, in view of peculiar facts of this case and more particularly on account of order

¶38

4 of 6

¶39

Sajakali Jamadar

¶40

18-WP-2187-2021-with-WP-2188-2021.doc

¶41

passed by the trial Court forfeiting the right to participate in the
proceedings, the Petitioners have approached this Court. The
submissions of the learned counsel for Petitioners cannot be
accepted. Statutory remedy of providing appeal is existing under
Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. The submissions
advanced before this Court could be advanced in the appeal if
preferred by the Petitioners. The remedy of appeal cannot be
bypassed. Criminal Writ Petition No.2187 of 2021 is challenging
the order dated 16th January, 2021 passed by Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai. Since the proceedings have
come to an end, this petition does not survive.

¶42

In the light of statutory remedy under Section 29, the Petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate Court challenging the final order dated 8^th March, 2021. It is also open to the Petitioners to urge issue raised in Criminal Writ Petition No.2187 of 2021. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I pass the following order.

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i)Criminal Writ Petition No.2187 of 2021 and Criminal
Writ Petition No.2188 of 2021 stand disposed of.
ii)The Petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal before
the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence

¶45

5 of 6

¶46

Sajakali Jamadar

¶47

18-WP-2187-2021-with-WP-2188-2021.doc

¶48

Act challenging the impugned order dated 8th March, 2021.
It will be also open to raise the contention of the Petitioners
which is subject matter of order dated 16th January, 2021 in
the appeal.

¶49

iii)The interim order dated 6th October, 2021 is continued
for a period of six weeks.

¶50

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶51

6 of 6

¶52

Sajakali Jamadar

Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav and Anr. v. Gaumatidevi Rammurat Yadav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav and Anr. v. Gaumatidevi Rammurat Yadav and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wahid Gafarkhan Chauhan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Wahid Gafarkhan Chauhan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Loyalty Hr Benefits Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Rafi @ Rafik Wali Mohd. Choudhary Vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Kumar Rammurat Yadav and Anr. Vs Gomatidevi Rammurat Yadav and Anr.

Grippon Profiles and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. Vs Shah Steel Impex Private Ltd., through Sushil Dilip Lipare and Anr.