Prabha W vs Unknown
2012 Latest Caselaw 459 Bom

                                           1                                      apl501.12.odt




                                                                                  
                   
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                          
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 501 OF 2012




                                                         
     Prabha wd/o Ramesh Arora, 
     Aged about 47 years, 
     Occupation - Household, 




                                              
     Resident of Jaikamal Complex, 
     In front of Chauhan Building,
                            
     Gandhi Gate, Mahal, Nagpur.                           ....               APPLICANT


                VERSUS
                           
     Bhagwandas s/o Santomal Pamnani,
     Aged about 67 years, 
      

     Occupation - Private, 
     Resident of Rampuri Camp, 
   



     Gadge Nagar, Amravati.                                ....        NON-APPLICANT


     ___________________________________________________________________
                  Mrs. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant,





                 Mr. R.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the non-applicant.
     ___________________________________________________________________


                                  CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.

th DATED : 6 DECEMBER, 2012.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel Mrs. S.P. Deshpande for the applicant

and learned Counsel Mr. R.B. Gaikwad for the non-applicant.

     2.                Admit.    Heard  finally by  consent  of  learned  Counsel  for   the 




                                              2                                        apl501.12.odt




                                                                                      
     parties. 




                                                              

3. Applicant Prabha Arora has moved the court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class for certain reliefs under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate had granted certain

reliefs at interim stage. The said order was challenged by the applicant

before the Sessions Court in appeal. The non-applicant also moved

independent appeal before the Sessions Court. As such the applicant and

non-applicant both were not satisfied with the order passed by the learned

Magistrate. The applicant was not satisfied with the amount granted to her.

She wanted enhanced interim maintenance. The non-applicant wanted that

order to be scrapped.

4. While deciding both the appeals the learned Additional

Sessions Judge on 8th May, 2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant

and set aside the order of monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- granted to the

applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the appeal of the

non-applicant.

5. It is how the applicant before this Court by way of present

application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 227 of

the Constitution of India. During the course of hearing of the present

3 apl501.12.odt

application, it was brought to my notice by Mr. R.B. Gaikwad that final

hearing of the application has begun and three witnesses have already been

examined. The learned Magistrate is under obligation to decide the

application finally by the end of this year in view of the order passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge. The apprehension of the applicant is that

the learned Magistrate might be influenced by the observations made by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, which are sweeping in nature. In this

regard, it may be mentioned here that the order passed in appeals by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge is also an ad interim order and it cannot in

any manner affect the final result of the application pending before the

learned Magistrate.

6. The learned Magistrate is not permitted to take into

consideration any observations made by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge in the order passed in appeals. The apprehension of the learned

Counsel for the applicant, therefore, in my opinion, is baseless. In any event,

to assure the applicant, it is directed that the learned Magistrate while

passing the final order shall not be influenced by any observations made by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding Criminal Appeal

No.71/2012 and Criminal Appeal No.94/2012. The learned Magistrate is

directed to follow the direction with regard to disposal of the application

made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeals.

4 apl501.12.odt

Accordingly the application stands dismissed.

JUDGE.

pma