AMIT SATISH SHAH Vs. ARCHANA AMIT SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 11 March 2013 made by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay rent / licence fee towards the 'share household' i.e. flat No. B/20, Pournima Park, Salisibury Park, Pune or in the alternate to make arrangement for alternative premises for the respondent and minor child on or before the termination of the leave and licence in respect of the share household or pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent for acquisition of alternate premises by the respondent.

(2.) As of now, the respondent and the minor child have acquired alternate premises, in respect of which the respondent claims to pay rent of Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioner disputes this position by asserting that the premises wherein the respondent now resides, are premises owned by her own brother and therefore the respondent cannot be said to be paying any rent for such premises. Besides, the petitioner points out that the respondent owns yet another premises, which she has rented out for Rs.7,000/- per month. On these grounds as also others adverted to hereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

(3.) Mr. Kapre, learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from making the aforesaid contentions, submitted that there is material on record which establishes that the respondent is an I.T. Professional currently earning about Rs.61,000/- per month. In contrast, the petitioner having lost his previous job, has presently taken up new employment which earns him hardly Rs.35,000/- per month. The Family Court, in making the impugned order has glossed over such relevant and vital circumstances. Further, the Family Court had no jurisdiction in making the impugned order even before the main application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) could be disposed of. Mr. Kapre submitted that residence order under Section 19 of the D.V. Act can be made only whilst disposing of an application under sub section (1) of Section 12 of the D.V. Act and not prior to the same. Further, in making any residence order, the Court is required to have regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties, which in present case, the Family Court has completely disregarded. For all these reasons, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.