JUDGMENT - NIJJAR S.S., J.:---The plaintiff and defendant are Muslims and were married on 2nd May, 1997 according to Islamic Rites. At the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was a spinster and a minor aged about 15 years. Defendant was a bachelor aged about 22 years. It was an arranged marriage. According to the case pleaded in the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff has been turned out of the matrimonial home. Whatever jewellery had been given to her by her parents has been taken away from her by the mother-in-law. All her clothes have been taken away by the mother-in-law. The jewellery as well as the clothes are regularly used by the mother-in-law and the sisters of the husband who are frequent visitors in the matrimonial home. It is also stated that although the parents of the defendants knew that the plaintiff did not know anything about cooking, she was compelled to cook all the meals, wash the utensils, wash and iron the clothes, clean and sweep the whole house. This work used to start at 6 O'clock in the morning and would only end round about 2/3 O'clock in the following morning. Throughout the petition, the plaintiff has given graphic details of the maltreatment which she had to endure whilst in the matrimonial home. According to the plaintiff, the mother-in-law is a habitual drunkerd. She is also prone to become violent when she is in the state of intoxication. Allegations of infidelity have also been made by the sister-in-law of the plaintiff i.e. wife of the elder brother of the defendant. It is also stated that she has been mistreated because she did not bring sufficient dowry. Thus the plaintiff has prayed for dissolution of the marriage under section 2(VIII)(a), (d), (f) of the Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. The plaintiff has also narrated in the petition itself that after compelling her to leave the matrimonial home, defendant as well as his parents have not stopped the harassment. They are continuously ringing up the neighbour of the plaintiff's father and causing a general nuisance in the locality. The plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering upon the plaintiffs parents residence or shouting or abusing or threatening the plaintiff or her parents. She has also claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 2. The plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering upon the plaintiffs parents residence or shouting or abusing or threatening the plaintiff or her parents. She has also claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 2. In paragraph 14 of the petition it is stated that the defendant and his family reside in a furnished flat of 3 bed rooms one hall one store room and kitchen at Vasundhara Apartment Flat No. 304 Station Road, Bhayandar (East), District Thane. The defendant has 14 shops which are given on rent. He carries on business in the name of M/s. Johra Traders at Bhayandar. The business is of cement sand, tiles and flooring material as well as real estate business. He has two shops at Bhayandar, 2 shops at Mira Road, a plot of land in Malad near Chincholi Phatak which is zopadpatti of 80 tenants. In the building at Bhayandar where he resides, he has one shoe shop and one shop of eatables. The defendant is also constructing a building in Bhayandar (East) and owns 30 acres of cultivated land at village Sultanpura Benaras where wheat, rice, pulses etc. are cultivated. The defendant is also stated to have decoration business for marriages and functions. He also takes up contracts for road construction in the name of M/s. Nizammuddin Shaikh, who is elder brother of the defendant. The businesses are located in Mira Road, Bhayandar and Malad. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the defendant is earning about Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month. 3. Initially an affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion was filed by the father of the plaintiff. Subsequently on the directions of this Court, an affidavit has been filed in support of the Notice of Motion on 3rd August, 1999 by the plaintiff herself. In this affidavit, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. She specifically states that the defendant and his parents had no consideration for the tender age of the plaintiff and was forced to do all the household work like a maid servant. They also made constant demands for dowry and money. 4. Written statement has been filed by the defendant. It is stated that the averments made in the plaint are totally false. They also made constant demands for dowry and money. 4. Written statement has been filed by the defendant. It is stated that the averments made in the plaint are totally false. It is claimed that the plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the marriage. She was in fact 18 years of age when the marriage took place on 2nd May, 1997. On the other hand it is stated that if the age as given by the plaintiff is accepted, then on the date of the marriage she would be a minor and, therefore, the marriage would be ab initio, null and avoid. Therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to maintenance as per law. Action ought to be taken against the father of the plaintiff for giving the age of the plaintiff as 18 years when in fact she was only 13 years and 8 months old. It is stated that rather than making any claim for dowry the family of the defendant had given clothes and jewellery worth Rs. 90,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of dhal. Thereafter the plaintiff was given gold and sliver ornaments and a watch in all worth about Rs. 22,500/- and cash of Rs. 4001/-. The defendant's sister gave the plaintiff one gold necklace set. His other sister gave the plaintiff one gold ring and one set of gold bangles. The defendant's sister-in-law i.e. elder brother's wife gave the plaintiff a mang ka gold tika and a gold chain. The defendant's mother, Johra Begum, gave the plaintiff one gold bracelet and Rs. 1,000/- cash. His younger brother gave the plaintiff one set of silver payal and Rs. 501 cash. The defendant gave the plaintiff one gold chain, a ladies wrist watch and Rs. 2, 501/- cash. Whatever was given by the plaintiff's parents was not taken for want of containers. Only a few small items were taken. These were supposed to be delivered by the father of the plaintiff to the father of the defendant which never arrived. Sister of the defendant got married on 4th May, 1997. The plaintiff's parents and relatives were invited to the reception of the sister's marriage. There again the plaintiff was given gold ornaments, wrist watch and cash amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. The parents and the relatives of the plaintiff behaved very badly during the marriage festivities. Sister of the defendant got married on 4th May, 1997. The plaintiff's parents and relatives were invited to the reception of the sister's marriage. There again the plaintiff was given gold ornaments, wrist watch and cash amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. The parents and the relatives of the plaintiff behaved very badly during the marriage festivities. She only stayed in the matrimonial home for about 20 days. On 25th March, 1997 the plaintiff was brought back to the matrimonial home. Rather than working up 6 O' clock in the morning the plaintiff had to be woken up every day. Instead of doing household work she was busy in watching television all the time. She would not do any work in the house even small things such as sweeping and swabbing the floor. She also used to sleep in the afternoon and get up about 6 to 7.00 p.m. All the household work was being done by the wife of the elder brother. It is also stated that the married sisters of the defendant only sometimes come to the house of the defendant and that too on festivals. Rather than being submissive the plaintiff was very abusive. It is narrated that one day the plaintiff kept three liters of milk for boiling on the stove and without bothering about it went to sleep. With the result all the milk overflowed and the utensil got burnt. There was a chance that the whole house could have caught fire. The mother of the defendant woke up because of the smoke and turned the gas off. She also politely told the plaintiff not to do this again. If she wants to sleep then she can go to sleep. The plaintiff also refused to wear gungat which is the normal practice in the family. It is stated that the plaintiff used to stand in the balcony of the house which is opposite the Railway Station and keep looking at the people outside which act on the part of the plaintiff is not conducive to a healthy atmosphere and does not speak well of the plaintiff. The written statement further states that the son of Aslam, cousin of the plaintiff, would visit the house every week in the afternoon to meet the plaintiff when all the members of the house were away. He would be with her in the room bolted from inside. The written statement further states that the son of Aslam, cousin of the plaintiff, would visit the house every week in the afternoon to meet the plaintiff when all the members of the house were away. He would be with her in the room bolted from inside. On one occasion when his sister-in-law woke up she knocked on the door and it took the plaintiff 30 minutes to open the door. This gave room for doubts. On 12th July, 1997 Aslam came and took the plaintiff to Jogeshwari. Thereafter the parents of the plaintiff demanded payment of Rs. 25,000/- because of personal problems. The defendant said that he had no personal money as he has no income of his own. On 24th August, 1997 defendant had gone to collect the plaintiff to bring her to the matrimonial home. After lunch the plaintiff's father told the defendant that he wanted Rs. 25,000/- to purchase a plot in U.P. The defendant told the plaintiffs father that he had no money. On this the father of the plaintiff became very angry and said that if you do not have even that much money how will you be able to keep his daughter and fulfil her needs. Thus defendant requested the plaintiff's father to ask his father for the money. When the defendant asked as to when the father of the plaintiff was to give the Items which had been left behind, the father started abusing the defendant and also got very angry. After coming back to the matrimonial home, the plaintiff started her tantruns again. After receiving Rs. 25,000/-, the father of the plaintiff demanded Rs. 30,000/-. The parents of the defendant were hurt and unhappy and, therefore, a meeting was arranged on 21-12-1997 by the defendant's father at his residence to discuss the matter with the plaintiff's father, 15 other persons of the community were also present. The father of the plaintiff apologised. Thereafter the plaintiff did not return to the matrimonial home. She in fact claim to be in love with somebody else and wanted the defendant to divorce her. On the day of Idd, the father of the defendant had gone to the house of the father of the plaintiff and gave her two sets of punjabi dresses, Rs. 1,500/- and 1 kg. of sweets but the father of the plaintiff refused to send the plaintiff to the matrimonial home. On the day of Idd, the father of the defendant had gone to the house of the father of the plaintiff and gave her two sets of punjabi dresses, Rs. 1,500/- and 1 kg. of sweets but the father of the plaintiff refused to send the plaintiff to the matrimonial home. 5. With regard to the income, it is stated that the defendant has no independent income. He only helps his father in the business of the father. Thus factually it is stated that he is not in a position to maintain the plaintiff. 6. On the basis of these averments, both the Counsel have made their submissions. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that clearly a case of neglect to maintain the plaintiff has been made out on the basis of the averments made in the petition. She is, therefore, entitled to maintenance in the sum of Rupees 10,000/- per month. On the other hand Counsel for the defendant has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs is not entitled to any maintenance. According to the learned Counsel, the husband has not failed or neglected to maintain the plaintiff. He is still ready and willing to take the plaintiff back. Counsel however, does not deny that the defendant has remarried. He has explained the remarriage on the ground of loneliness. Learned Counsel has cited the case of (Fazal Mahmud v. Mt. Umatur Rahim)1, A.I.R. 1949 Peshwar 7 to submit that there is no provision for maintenance under the Mohammedan Law. Learned Counsel has also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of (Shabbir Ahmed Sheikh v. Shakilabanu)2, 1985(2) D.M.C. 13. 7. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel. In the case of Fazal Mahmud, A.I.R. 1949 Peshwar 7 (supra) it has been held that the plaintiff therein was not maintained by the defendant for over 2 years because she deserted her husband and refused to live with him on any condition. Thus the only question for consideration before the High Court was whether the plaintiff is entitled to a divorce by reason of section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The material portion of the section was reproduced which is as under : "A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds namely......... The material portion of the section was reproduced which is as under : "A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds namely......... (ii) that the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years." In view of the fact that the wife had deserted the husband it was held that the wife is not entitled to divorce. The Division Bench has clearly held as follows: "The preamble to Act VIII(8) of 1939 shows that the Act is of a consolidating and declaratory character and that it was intended to consolidate and clarify the provisions of Muslim law relating to suits for dissolution of marriages by women married under Muslim Law and to remove doubts as to the effect of the renunciation of Islam by a married muslim woman on her marriage tie. It was never intended to abrogate the general law applicable to Mohamedans. Now, it is firmly established that under Mohammedan law no wife can claim maintenance unless she resides with her husband and is prepared to perform her marital duties. It is, therefore, not correct to say that section 2(ii) of Act VIII(8) of 1939 casts upon the husband an absolute duty to maintain his wife and that his failure in all cases would be a ground for divorce even if the wife herself was at fault and was really the cause of the husband's refusal to maintain her. Before a husband can be said to have neglected or failed to provide maintenance for his wife, it must be held that the husband was under a legal duty to provide such maintenance. If, therefore, the appellant in the present case was not under Mohammedan law bound to maintain his wife by reason of her refusal to live with him and perform her marital duties, how can it be said that he had neglected or failed to maintain her if he sent her no money or other maintenance. It was held in (Mt. Badrunisa Bibi v. Mohammad Yusuf)3, A.I.R. 1944 All. 23, that the word "neglect" implies wilful failure and that the words "has failed to provide" are not very happy, but even they imply an omission of duty. It was held in (Mt. Badrunisa Bibi v. Mohammad Yusuf)3, A.I.R. 1944 All. 23, that the word "neglect" implies wilful failure and that the words "has failed to provide" are not very happy, but even they imply an omission of duty. We are, therefore, of opinion that where the wife is entirely to blame and no blame attaches to the husband, it cannot be said that the husband has failed to provide for the maintenance of the wife or that he has neglected her." It was held that a wife is not entitled to divorce on the ground that she was no maintained by her husband, if she refused to reside with her husband or fails to discharge her marital obligations without any reasonable cause. Thus, it becomes apparent that the husband is not absolved from maintaining the wife even when she has a reasonable cause to remain away from the matrimonial home. If the husband behaves properly and the wife still refused to live with the husband and discharge her marital obligations, then the husband is not bound to maintain the wife. But if the wife refused to reside with the husband for reasonable cause then it cannot be said that the wife is not entitled to maintenance. In the case of Shabbir Sheikh, 1985(2) D.M.C. 13 (supra) a Single Bench of this Court was dealing with a right of interim maintenance of the wife in a suit filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the right to sue for maintenance is given to the wife under the Mohammedan Law only if her husband neglects or refuses to maintain her without any lawful cause. For this proposition, the learned Single Judge has relied upon Articles 277 and 278 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law (18th Edn. edited by M. Hidayatullah). These Articles are reproduced herein for the sake of convenience. "277. Husband's duty to maintain his wife. The husband is bound to maintain his wife (unless she is too young for matrimonial intercourse), so long as she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. edited by M. Hidayatullah). These Articles are reproduced herein for the sake of convenience. "277. Husband's duty to maintain his wife. The husband is bound to maintain his wife (unless she is too young for matrimonial intercourse), so long as she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. But he is not bound to maintain a wife who refuses herself to him, or is otherwise disobedient, unless the refusal of disobedience is justified by non-payment of prompt (section 290) dower, or she leaves the husband's house on account of his cruelty. 278. Order for maintenance. If the husband neglects or refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful cause, the wife may sue him for maintenance, but she is not entitled to a decree for past maintenance, unless the claim is based on a specific agreement. Or, she may apply for an order of maintenance under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, section 488, in which case the Court may order the husband to make a monthly allowance in the whole for her maintenance not exceeding five hundred rupees." A perusal of the aforesaid articles makes it clear that the husband is bound to maintain his wife so long she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders (Article 277). The husband has a duty to maintain his wife. In no uncertain terms the Article says that the husband is bound to maintain his wife so long she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. The husband can refuse to maintain the wife if she is disobedient. This, however, is also conditional in that refusal on the part of the wife must be unjustified and that she does not leave the husband's house on account of his cruelty. Thus, just as the wife does not have an absolute right to maintenance, the husband also does not have a licence to treat the wife with cruelty. This is clarified by Article 278 which deals with order for maintenance. This Article categorically provides that if the husband neglects or refuses to maintain the wife without any lawful cause, the wife may sue for maintenance. The only limit is that wife cannot sue for past maintenance unless there is an agreement to the contrary. In view of the above. This Article categorically provides that if the husband neglects or refuses to maintain the wife without any lawful cause, the wife may sue for maintenance. The only limit is that wife cannot sue for past maintenance unless there is an agreement to the contrary. In view of the above. I do not find much substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the defendant to the effect that this Notice of Motion for maintenance is not maintainable. 8. I have noticed in detail the pleadings of the parties in order to come to a tentative/prima facie conclusion as to whether or not the wife was justified in leaving the matrimonial home. She has specifically pleaded allegations of cruelty. She has also specifically pleaded the allegations of unchastity which had been made against her. She has categorically stated that on one occasion the mother of defendant almost split the ear lobe of the wife whilst trying to remove one of the earrings from her ear. Although all these facts are sought to be denied, yet at this stage it is the word of the plaintiff against the word of the defendant. I am prima facie of the view that the plaintiff is justified in living away from the matrimonial home. 9. This now leaves only the question of quantum of maintenance which is to be fixed. The plaintiff has given details of the properties and business activities of the defendant. She has also given the details of the business which is being run by the family. It is not disputed by the defendant that he is part and parcel of a joint family. It is also not disputed that he is married for the second time. Therefore to say that he has no independent income to provide for maintenance of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. Once the details of the properties and the business had been specifically mentioned in the petition, it was for the defendant to disclose the income. He has chosen not to give any details of the income. He merely states that he is only helping in the business of his parents. When the plaintiff had made allegations that the parents of the defendant were constantly demanding dowry, it was stated by the Counsel for the defendant that the family is well off and, therefore, there is no need to make any demands for dowry. He merely states that he is only helping in the business of his parents. When the plaintiff had made allegations that the parents of the defendant were constantly demanding dowry, it was stated by the Counsel for the defendant that the family is well off and, therefore, there is no need to make any demands for dowry. Yet, on the other hand in reply to the plea for maintenance it is stated by the defendant that he has no independent income. In my view, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for interim maintenance. The defendant is directed to pay maintenance to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of the application. The defendant is directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance within a period of six weeks from today. Monthly maintenance to be paid on or before 7th of each month. For the reasons stated above, I am also satisfied that the defendant and his family members have to be restrained from threatening, abusing or accosting the plaintiff and her family members. Notice of Motion is also made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (a), Prayer Clause (a) reads as under: "(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit for order of injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from coming to, or entering upon the plaintiff's parents residence at Buddhan ki Chawl, Id-gah Maidan, Prem Nagar, Jogeshwari (E) or shouting or abusing or threatening the plaintiff or her parents and/or accosting the plaintiff or her parents anywhere in the street." Notice of Motion disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly. -----