Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2602 (BOM)

Pramila Premnath Gadekar v. Premnath P Gadekar

2019-11-26

PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. - Heard Mr. S. Redkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Phadte, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing and final disposal. 3. This is a dispute between husband and wife. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent no.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 20.12.2013. A matrimonial dispute started somewhere in April, 2014. 4. The sum and substance of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondents are that on 26.6.2014, the respondents assaulted her, whereas, it is the contention of respondent no.1 that the petitioner assaulted him on 25.7.2014. Due to the assault by the respondent no.1, the petitioner was admitted in District Hospital, Mapusa. A case was filed against the respondents with Corjuem police on 28.9.2014. 5. An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2014, inter alia, an application for interim maintenance was moved on 9.2.2015. Subsequently, respondent no.1 filed a marriage petition bearing No.120/2014/B in the month of November, 2014. 6. By the impugned order dated 6.4.2016, learned JMFC in Criminal Case No.1759/DVA/2014/A rejected the application for interim maintenance filed by the petitioner. An appeal preferred before the Sessions Court, North Goa, Panjim bearing Criminal Appeal No.65/2016 on 10.5.2016 also came to be dismissed by the said Court by another impugned order dated 22.2.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner, has approached this Court for quashing the orders impugned. 7. At the outset, several efforts were made including counselling of the parties in the Chamber to resolve the dispute amicably to which this Court succeeded to certain extent however, at the end, efforts could not be materilised and, therefore, matter needs to be adjudicated on merits. 8. There are allegations and counter allegations against each other. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been forced to reside with her parents and has been restrained from entering the matrimonial house. Petitioner has filed complaint with Mapusa Police Station and before the Goa State Commission for Women, alleging commission of Domestic Violence by the respondents. Petitioner claim that she does not have any source of income whereas respondent no.1 has a flour mill and a power tiller machine. He earns handsome income from the said business. 9. Petitioner has filed complaint with Mapusa Police Station and before the Goa State Commission for Women, alleging commission of Domestic Violence by the respondents. Petitioner claim that she does not have any source of income whereas respondent no.1 has a flour mill and a power tiller machine. He earns handsome income from the said business. 9. On the other hand, respondent no.1 alleged that he had already filed petition for annulment of the marriage on the ground of neglect on the part of the petitioner. He specifically alleged that the petitioner used to get aggressive and fight with him as well as other respondents on petty issue and used to act in weird manner. Respondent no.1 contents that the petitioner is able to maintain herself as she does tailoring work at her home. As she had left the shared household on her own, without any reasonable cause and refused to cohabit with respondent no.1, she is not entitled for any interim maintenance. 10. Perusal of the impugned orders reveal as to how the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interim maintenance. To cite a few examples from the impugned orders are that when the petitioner made an allegation of assault by the respondent no.1 and when she was hospitalised on the same date and discharged, no injuries whatsoever were noticed on her person. Whereas respondent no.1 had informed the authority of Mapusa police station by his letter dated 25.9.2014 indicating as to how the petitioner had left the shared household without any cause. On 28.9.2014 the respondent no.1 had also lodged a report with the Officer Incharge, Karaswada Outpost, Mapusa that when he was sleeping, the petitioner placed a pillow on his face and started pressing the same with an intention to cause harm to the respondent no.1 but could not succeed. He was admitted to Galaxy Hospital, Duler, Mapusa for a treatment. 11. It is an admitted fact that the parties are no more husband and wife in view of the decree of divorce passed by the Civil Court. Decree came to be passed against the petitioner on account of petitioner deserting respondent no.1. 12. The reasons assigned by both the Courts below are correct, proper and in accordance with the material produced on record. Even otherwise, orders impugned are interim and not final. 13. Decree came to be passed against the petitioner on account of petitioner deserting respondent no.1. 12. The reasons assigned by both the Courts below are correct, proper and in accordance with the material produced on record. Even otherwise, orders impugned are interim and not final. 13. This Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will have to follow decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Jain V/s. Pawan Kumar Jain and Ors, (2008) 2 SCC 705 The law as to exercise of the inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is no more res integra. Such powers, indeed are to be exercised in the rarest of rare cases only for securing the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the impugned orders. 14. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion, is that no case is warranted to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 15. Petition is devoid of merits and, hence, dismissed. Rule is discharged.