Bombay High Court
Daisy Rohaan Bhathena Nee Daisy ... vs Rohaan Palsi Bhathena on 6 November, 2025
IAL-722-2025(J).docx
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.722 OF 2025
IN
MISC. APPLICATION (L) NO.717 OF 2025
IN
PARSI SUIT (L) NO.38137 OF 2024
Daisy Rohaan Bhathena ] ... Applicant
In the matter between
Daisy Rohaan Bhathena ]
Nee Daisy Mehernosh Daruwala ]
Age:39 Occ: Service ]
And Child Counsellor ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant ]
Residing At: F-43, Cusrow Baug ]
Electric House Colaba ]
Mumbai-400005. ] ... Applicant
Versus
Rohaan Plasi Bhathena ]
Age : 39 Occ : Business ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant ]
Residing At: F-43, Cusrow Baug ]
Electric House Colaba ]
Mumbai-400005. ] ... Respondent
Ms. Tauban F. Irani a/w Ms.Moksha Kothari for the Applicant.
Mr. Rustom Pardiwala i/by Adeeba Khan for the Respondent.
Applicant and Respondent, present.
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 6TH NOVEMBER 2025
1/13
SANDHYA Digitally
SANDHYA
signed by
BHAGU BHAGU WADHWA
WADHWA Date: 2025.11.06
15:28:38 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 :::
IAL-722-2025(J).docx
ORDER:
1) Ms. Taubon Irani, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant, seeks interim relief restraining the Respondent from entering the Applicant's flat situated at F-43 Cusrow Baug, Electric House, Colaba, Mumbai-400005, under Section 19(1)(b) and (c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
2) Ms. Irani submits that the Applicant has instituted proceedings under Section 32 (dd) and (e) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, being Suit (St) No. 38137 of 2024, as well as an Application under Sections 18 to 20, 22, 23 and 26 of the DV Act. The present Application, she clarifies, is filed under Section 23 of the DV Act seeking interim protection.
3) It is submitted that the parties were married on 16 th December 2011 at Albless Baug, Mumbai, in accordance with Parsi rites and customs. Two children have been born from the wedlock - a son aged 6 ½ years and a daughter aged 2 years. Throughout the marriage, the Applicant has allegedly been subjected to continuous cruelty - physical, mental, emotional and financial. The Respondent is stated to have physically assaulted the Applicant on several occasions and abused her family members in offensive language. Despite repeated interventions by relatives, the Respondent's behaviour did 2/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx not improve. The Applicant, as a last resort, filed two police complaints at Colaba Police Station in 2024. Upon continued misconduct, she has now sough to dissolve the marriage.
4) It is further contended that the Respondent's aggressive conduct is having an adverse impact on the children. The son, diagnosed with autism, has developed fear and anxiety due to the Respondent's aggression and verbal abuse. The Applicant submits that the son has even witnessed incidents of physical violence. She has sought interim custody of both children and protection against the Respondent forcibly taking away the minor daughter. It is also alleged that, despite having substantial income, the Respondent contributes to household expenses arbitrarily and inconsistently.
5) Referring to table in paragraph 8 of the Application, Ms. Irani submits that the Applicant incurs monthly expenses of approximately Rs.61,000/- for her daughter, Rs.1,07,000/- for the son and around Rs.30,000/- towards general household costs. Accordingly, the relief sought include:
(a) Appointment of a protection officer under Section 18 of the DV Act,
(b) Continuation of the interim custody of the minor children under Section 21 of the DV Act, 3/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx
(c) Restraining the Respondent from forcibly taking the children from the Applicant's custody; and
(d) Restraining the Respondent from entering the Applicant's flat.
Additionally, the Applicant seeks monthly maintenance of Rs.1,10,000/- for the son, Rs.60,000/- for the daughter, and Rs.30,000/- towards household expenses, as well as a direction requiring the Respondent to disclose his assets and liabilities in terms of the Supreme Court's decision in Rajneesh vs. Neha1.
6) Ms. Irani further submits that the Applicant has filed an additional affidavit dated 23rd January 2025 detailing incidents between 14th and 21st January 2025 to illustrate the Respondent's conduct. It is submitted that the Respondent has his parental home available for residence and that the present flat exclusively belongs to the Applicant. Apart from the minor furniture and renovation work, the Respondent has not contributed materially to the household.
7) She also draws attention to Protection Officer report dated 3rd April 2025, submitting that it is not in the format prescribed under the DV Act. Nonetheless, the report acknowledges frequent quarrels between the parties, which have caused emotional distress to the children.
1
AIR 2021 SC 569 4/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx
8) Mr. Pardiwala, learned Advocate for the Respondent, relies on the affidavit in reply dated 5th March 2025 and the affidavits of two domestic servants to contend that the couple shares cordial relations.
9) Mr. Pardiwala submits that the present Application is an misuse of the legal process. The allegations are described as false, reckless, and motivated to build a false narrative of cruelty. He denies all acts of domestic violence and attributes the material discord to excessive interference by the Applicant's parents. He contends that the Respondent undertook substantial renovation work and paid 50% of the occupation charges to the trustees. Relying on bank statements and receipts, he submits that the Respondent has regularly paid electricity bill and outgoings. He argues that the Applicant, a postgraduate in child psychology, would not have remained silent if genuine acts of domestic violence had occurred.
10) The Respondent claims to have borne all travel expenses for family holidays to Goa, Sydney, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Singapore, Bangkok, Panchgani, Lonavala and Daman. He contends that the Applicant's allegations are inconsistent with her decision to have a second child in 2022. He further submits that despite CCTV cameras installed in the residence, the Applicant has not produced any footage supporting her claims of assault.
11) Referring to the affidavits of the domestic staff - the two 5/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx maids who are employed at their residence, he points out that neither has ever witnessed any act of violence by the Respondent. He contends that the Applicant fabricated a case of domestic violence solely to deprive him of residence and parental access. Relying on the Bank Statements annexed to the Affidavit it is submitted that the Respondent is incurring all expenses of the minor children, including the school fees, tuition fees and other day to day expenses and also takes utmost care of both the children. Therefore, there is no reason to grant any custody of the minor children to the Applicant alone. Despite his financial constraints, he asserts that he was compelled by the Applicant to maintain a high-cost lifestyle in South Mumbai. He also disputes the certificate issued by Ummeed Child Development Centre, arguing that it is unreliable since the Applicant is an Associate Director with the same institution and has procured the same using her good offices. Relying upon the Protection Officer's report dated April 2025 it is submitted that even the report does not mention about any act of cruelty inflicted by the Respondent on the Applicant.
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj vs Nandita Samir Bhardwaj2 held that once a Family Court prima facie accepts the wife's allegations of domestic violence, an order directing the husband's removal from the shared household cannot be termed 2 (2017) 14 SCC 583 6/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx perverse or unwarranted.
13) In the present case, the Applicant - an educated woman with independent income - has, after fourteen years of marriage and having borne two kids with the Respondent, filed police complaints and produced photographs evidencing physical abuse. There is no reason to disbelieve either the photographs or the police complaints. A prima facie case granting protection and restraining the Resp from the shared household is thus established.
14) This Court in Ishpal Singh Kahai v/s. Ramanjeet Kahai 3 held that the right to reside under Section 19 of the DV Act necessarily implies protection from wife's dispossession but statutorily follows a matter of corollary - the order of injunction of the Court for removal of the violator from such household and thereafter restraining him from entering their upon. The order of removal of the violator and restrain the husband from re-entering upon the shared household is, therefore, conditioned upon his abusive behavior, violating the personal rights of his wife or any other woman in domestic relationship and not upon his proprietary rights in the shared household.
15) Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act empowers the Court to direct removal of the husband from the shared household where the woman seeks such relief. Given the prima facie material before this 3 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 849 7/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx Court, such a direction is warranted. The High Court of Madras in the V. Anusha v/s. B. Krishnan4 in paragraph 13 observed as under:
"13. If the removal of the husband from home alone is the only way to ensure domestic peace, the court needs to pass such orders irrespective of the fact whether the respondent has or has not an other accommodation of his own. If the husband has got an alternate accommodation, it is fine that he can be asked to accommodate himself in that alternate premises. If he does not have any other accommodation, it is upto him to secure an alternate accommodation. In this case, the petitioner has filed a memo stating the details about the possibility of accommodating the respondent in the alternate accommodation possessed by him. But the same was not considered by the court below."
16) Applying the above principle, I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a prima facie case justifying interim protection. The Respondent's proprietary or residential interests cannot override the Applicant's right to a peaceful and secure environment.
17) This Court in Vijay Jagdish Chheda v/s. Dimple Vijay Chheda5, observed that the very object and intention of the protection 4 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4078 5 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 5522 8/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx under DV Act would be frustrated if relief were denied to a woman and her children facing domestic distress merely because the husband asserts residential or financial claims.
18) Reliance is placed on Sabita Mark Burges v/s. Mark Lionel Burges6. Laying emphasis on paragraph 12 of the said judgment it is argued that based on mere allegations of physical abuse and violence, the husband cannot be restrained from entering upon the matrimonial home. These allegations would have to be tested in the Petition. The wife would have to withstand cross-examination.
19) Having heard both the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the material on record, the following conclusions arise.
(i) The matrimonial home in which the couple presently reside along with their kids is in the name of the Applicant.
(ii) It is, however, undisputed that the interiors of
the said home were undertaken at the
expense of the Respondent. The Respondent
also contributes towards the household
expenses and children's needs.
20) The Suit filed by the Applicant is premised on the
6
2013(5) Bom.C.R. 387
9/13
::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 :::
IAL-722-2025(J).docx
allegations of cruelty and physical abuse by the Respondent. This Court, by its order dated 18th March 2025, had directed the Protection Officer to assist the Applicant. The Protection Officer's report does not disclose any incidence of physical violence between the parties. It does, however, record persistent quarrels and a strained relationship, noting further that the Applicant has exhibited a degree of inflexibility in her behaviour. It is also a matter of record that the Applicant has filed a Petition for divorce after fourteen years of marriage and has sought protection from the Respondent on grounds of physical abuse.
21) Without delving into the detailed reasons for the Applicant seeking restraint against the Respondent's entry into the matrimonial home, it is evident that the parties are unable to cohabit. The Applicant, therefore, deserves her own space along with her minor children. The Respondent, being the husband, cannot insist on residing in the matrimonial home or dictate terms to the wife, particularly when she has sought protection and restraint against him. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondent if he is restrained from entering the Applicant's residence without her prior consent, at least for a limited period of one month from the date of this order. This temporary separation may also provide both parties an opportunity to introspect and attempt reconciliation, keeping in mind not only their own interests but also those of their children, who require the presence 10/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 ::: IAL-722-2025(J).docx and affection of both parents for their well-being. The Respondent shall vacate the house within four days from the date of uploading of this order.
22) The Respondent shall, however, be permitted to meet the children three times a week, after obtaining prior appointment from the Applicant through electronic communication. Such meetings may take place at the matrimonial home for a duration of up to four hours on each occasion, subject to the Applicant's convenience and availability. The Applicant shall cooperate and not unreasonably deny access to the Respondent. In the event of non-co-operation or obstruction, the Respondent will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate directions, including modification or enhancement of visitation rights.
23) The Applicant would be entitled to seek protection from the police officer on the dates when the Husband chooses to visit the minor children and concerned police station will assign for the visit the residence of the wife and minor children.
24) The Protection Officer shall resubmit the report in the prescribed format under the DV Act within one week from the date of this order. This present arrangement is purely pro tem in nature and intended to facilitate monitoring of the parties' conduct pending the final adjudication of the proceedings.
11/13::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 :::
IAL-722-2025(J).docx
25) The Respondent is further directed to pay all necessary fees, charges and expenses relating to the children's education and welfare to the Applicant within one week of receipt of the relevant invoices from the Applicant.
26) I find that the decision in Sabita Mark Burges (supra) will not be of any assistance to Mr. Pardiwala, in view of the material before this Court, namely, the photographs that prima facie evince physical abuse followed by the police complaints against the Applicant.
27) On the prima facie case being made out by the Applicant, for her own and her minor children's protection, as a pro tem measure, I deem it fit to pass the following order:-
(i) The Respondent shall vacate the house within 4 days from the date of uploading of this order on the website of High Court of Bombay.
(ii) The Respondent shall be permitted to meet the
children 3 times a week after obtaining prior
appointment/permission from the Applicant through
electronic communication.
(iii) The Applicant shall be entitled to seek police
protection as per order dated 18th March 2025 from the concerned police station.12/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 :::
IAL-722-2025(J).docx
(iv) The Protection Officer is directed to resubmit the report in the prescribed format under the D.V. Act, within one week from the date of uploading of this order on the website of High Court of Bombay.
(iv) The Respondent is directed to pay all necessary fees, charges relating to the children education and welfare to the Applicant within one week of receipt of the relevant invoices from the Applicant.
28) List the Application on 9th December 2025 under the caption 'for directions'.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) 13/13 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2025 21:37:08 :::