Supreme Court of Mauritius, 17 avril 2026, 2026 PL1 6 – Mamode R v Mamode M B

Page 1 of 4

Mamode R v Mamode M B

2026 PL1 6

CN: DV09/26 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT -LOUIS (DIVISION 1 – CIVIL SIDE)

In the matter of: Reina MAMODE, born HOSSENKHAN

Applicant v Muhammad Bilaal MAMODE

Respondent

RULING This is an application for a Protection Order under The Protection from Domestic Violence Act 1997. The applicant swore an affidavit on 09.01.2026 in support of her application. The respondent resisted the application and both parties have testified before the Court. The parties are spouses and have been married for about 22 years. They have two children. The applicant’s case, as set out in her affidavit and confirmed on oath, is that on 07.01.2026 at about 11.30 hrs, following a discussion regarding a toilet mat, the respondent became aggressive, insulted her in gross and vulgar terms and threatened to put her out of the house and to kick her. She further averred that this was not a one-off incident, that the respondent had for a long time ill-treated and harassed her, that there had already been a previous application in 2024, and that despite an undertaking then given, the respondent did not thereafter maintain good behaviour towards her.

Page 2 of 4

The applicant also referred to other incidents in 2025, including damage caused to her radio cassette and window panes, and stated that she had reported matters to Pailles Police Station. Her evidence before the Court was that because of the respondent’s conduct, she felt frightened and traumatised and feared further harm if no order was granted. The respondent, on the other hand, denied that he committed any act of domestic violence. His position was that there was merely an altercation between husband and wife regarding a toilet mat. He denied uttering the precise threatening words attributed to him and challenged various aspects of the applicant’s version regarding past incidents. He also maintained that he had respected the previous undertaking. The Court has carefully considered the sworn version of both parties, the documents produced and the manner in which each party gave evidence. It is quite clear that the relationship between the parties has seriously deteriorated and that the atmosphere in the matrimonial home is tense and conflictual. The issue, however, is whether the applicant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she has been the victim of domestic violence and that there is a real likelihood of further such conduct if the respondent is not restrained. Having duly considered the whole evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant’s version is more credible on the material aspects of the present application. The applicant gave a clear account that the respondent became aggressive, used abusive language and uttered threats which caused her fear and distress. Her evidence on the essential features of the incident remained substantially consistent. By contrast, although the respondent denied the exact words attributed to him, he nevertheless admitted that there was an altercation on 07.01.2026, that he was angry, that his voice was raised and that he may have addressed the applicant in insulting terms. Those admissions, though partial, lend support to the applicant’s version that the incident went beyond a calm domestic exchange. The respondent’s own evidence therefore does not wholly displace the applicant’s account but rather confirms that the incident was marked by anger, verbal aggression and tension. I also attach weight to the background of the matter. This is not the first time that the applicant has come before the Court for protection. There was already an earlier application in 2024 and an undertaking was then given by the respondent. Even if the Court does not propose to revisit or determine afresh every allegation relating to the prior proceedings, the existence of that earlier intervention is relevant in assessing the present application and the applicant’s state of fear. It tends to show that the present complaint did not arise in a vacuum.

Page 3 of 4

Moreover, the applicant’s fear of future harm cannot be said to be fanciful or exaggerated. It is significant that she did not simply rely on the single incident of 07.01.2026, but described an ongoing pattern of hostility, threats, intimidation and damage of property. While every past allegation was disputed by the respondent and need not be resolved in minute detail for the purposes of the present ruling, the Court is entitled to look at the overall pattern disclosed by the evidence in deciding whether protection is warranted. Another aspect which weighs with the Court is that the respondent’s defence was largely focused on collateral matters, including issues relating to ownership of the house, finances, his grievances as to past proceedings, and what he perceived as procedural unfairness. Those matters do not satisfactorily answer the central complaint made by the applicant, namely that on the material date he behaved in an abusive and threatening manner and that she has reasonable grounds to fear repetition. The respondent’s own evidence also revealed a continuing hostile domestic environment. He made it clear that, as matters presently stand, he does not agree that the applicant should remain in the house. Such an attitude, taken together with the admitted altercation and the history between the parties, reinforces the Court’s view that the applicant’s apprehension of further intimidation or harassment is objectively reasonable. The Court is mindful that there is no medical evidence in relation to the incident of 07.01.2026. However, that is not fatal to the application. The present case rests essentially on abusive conduct, intimidation, threats and the fear thereby caused to the applicant, rather than on proof of physical injury on that specific occasion. In the light of all the above, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she has been the victim of domestic violence within the meaning of the Act and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that further acts of domestic violence may occur unless the respondent is restrained. The Court therefore grants a Protection Order in favour of the applicant for a period of two months.

Page 4 of 4

C. Soobagrah-Pillay (Mrs) Senior District Magistrate Port Louis This 17 th day of April 2026