These days, the Bombay High Court refused to intrude with an order of the family court directing a seventy-five-year-old guy to pay Rs.1 lakh in reimbursement to his 72-yr-vintage wife underneath the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
![Bombay HC Refuses To Interfere With Family Court Order Directing 75-Yr-Old To Pay Rs.1L Compensation To 72-Year-Old Wife Under DV Act [Read Order] 1](https://aws.wideinfo.org/lawhery.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/10102157/Family-Law-McAdam-Fallon-Walden-New-York1.jpg "Bombay HC Refuses To Interfere With Family Court Order Directing 75-Yr-Old To Pay Rs.1L Compensation To 72-Year-Old Wife Under DV Act [Read Order] 2")
A department bench of Justice Akhil Kureshi and Justice Sarang Kotwal denied comfort to Subhash Anand, the appellant-husband who challenged the order of the Family Court, Mumbai, dated September 18, 2018. The court docket also authorized the respondent’s wife to access the upper ground of the residence in which her husband is living on the floor ground.
“Since several years, they’re having a matrimonial dispute. The unfortunate aspect of the matter is that the Respondent Wife had filed the Criminal Misc at such advanced age. Application before Gurgaon Court complaining of domestic violence at the fingers of the husband,” the court docket found. In her utility earlier than the own family court, the respondent spouse had prayed for restraining her husband from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home in Walkeshwar, Mumbai.
The own family court allowed her application and exceeded numerous directions, along with restraining the appellant-husband or his servants from coming into the upper floor of the residence to shield the spouse’s right to live beneath Sections 17 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In its order, the family courtroom said-
“The respondent is directed to pay repayment of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner below Sec.22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for committing an act of domestic violence by using causing intellectual torture, emotional misery to the petitioner.”
The Appellant husband’s lawyer Pandit Kasar submitted that the husband had agreed no longer to dispossess the spouse without an order of the court. Whereas, respondent spouse’s counsel Chandana Salgaonkar argued that the husband has within the beyond shown abusive and violative tendencies. Consequently, the order handed with the aid of the own family court docket needs to be endured without any intervening time modification or life.
The court made sure minor changes to the family court order; however, refused to live it and discovered-
“We have perused the order handed through the Family Court and sifted through the alternative files on record with the constrained reason of offering for period in-between comfort pending the final hearing of Family Court Appeal. When the husband himself has agreed now not to dispossess the wife from the said property, in any case, therefore, the question of staying route issued utilizing the Family Court in this admire does no longer rise.”
