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

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,

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.

AIR 2021 SC 569

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

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

(2017) 14 SCC 583

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

2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 849

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

2022 SCC OnLine Mad 4078

2018 SCC OnLine Bom 5522

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



    2013(5) Bom.C.R. 387





                                                              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

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.

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