Bombay High Court
Sharad S/O Kevalram Kathane And ... vs Bhagyashree W/O Sharad Kathane on 24 June, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 1 CRI. WP 394.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2022
Sharad s/o Kevalram Kathane and ors.
..vs..
Sou. Bhagyashree w/o Sharad Kathane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. AnilKumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 24/06/2022.
Heard.
2. The petitioner no.1-husband challenges the
order of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated
21.03.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2021 by
which the Appellate Court has enhanced the interim
maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month
from Rs.7,000/- per month.
3. The respondent-wife has filed application in
terms of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act 2005, in which she has claimed
interim maintenance. The application was decided on
merits on which the learned Magistrate has granted
interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per
month. Both the parties got aggrieved by the said
order as the wife has preferred Criminal Appeal No.79
of 2021 seeking enhancement whilst the husband has
preferred Criminal Appeal 184 of 2021 seeking to
quash the order of interim maintenance.
2 1 CRI. WP 394.2022
4. It reveals that both the appeals were assigned
two different Additional Sessions Judges for disposal.
The wife's appeal No.79 of 2021 was decided on
21.03.2022 enhancing the amount as stated above. It
reveals from the impugned judgment that the
petitioner-husband though served, he did not appear in
the appeal as a consequence the appeal proceeded ex-
parte resulting into an enhancement of maintenance
amount. Thereafter, husband's appeal No.184 of 2021
came for hearing before another learned Additional
Sessions Judge wherein the wife appeared and pointed
out that already the same issue was decided in her
appeal. On the basis of said material, the another
learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the
husband's appeal.
5. It is the petitioners' grievance that he was not
served in wife's appeal no. 79 of 2021, but despite that
the Appellate Court proceeded ex-parte against him.
The petitioner has reproduced the status report of
postal service in paragraph 12 of the petition to
impress that he was not served with the notice of the
appeal.
6. Besides that it is argued that the wife has
newly produced certain additional documents in her
appeal, which were blindly relied as the matter was
ex-parte. According to the petitioners, the quantum of
interim maintenance fixed by the Appellate Court was
too excessive and therefore, he could not meet the
3 1 CRI. WP 394.2022
same. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while
seeking stay to the impugned order of enhancement
submitted that the husband is ready to pay the interim
maintenance as ordered by the learned Magistrate.
7. It is evident from the record that the amount
of interim maintenance was enhanced ex-parte. It is a
matter of fact whether the petitioner-husband was
served in appeal or otherwise. However, the Appellate
Court's order discloses that salary of husband was to
the tune of Rs.1,11,475/- per month, which was
considered while enhancing the amount of
maintenance.
8. Having regard to the above fact, impugned
order dated 21.03.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.79 of 2021 is stayed subject to the petitioner-
husband depositing interim maintenance at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per month purely towards interim
arrangement, till further orders.
9. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on
15.07.2022.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
24.06.2022 18:06
