[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Krisha Manglani Alias Shweta Lalwani vs Sagar Ishwar Manglani And Ors on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:56271
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4000 OF 2024
Krisha Manglani alias Shweta Lalwani,
Age-33 years, Occ-Unemployed,
Through her next friend/father
Jagdish Lalwani, Age-59 years,
Residing at B-602, Tridev Apartment,
Bhakti Marg, Mulund (W),
Mumbai 400 080. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sagar Ishwar Manglani,
Age-35 years, Occ-Service,
Permanent Address in India;
C-2048, Ocean Park Kalvibid
Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364001.
2. Ishwar Manglani,
Age-69 years,
R/at: C-2048, Ocean Park, Kalvibid
Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364001.
3. Dhanwanti Ishwar Manglani,
Age : 68 years,
R/at: C-2048, Ocean Park, Kalvibid
Bhavnagar, Gujarat-364001.
4. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Sarah Kapadia a/w Ms. Ankita Pachouri, Ms. Anoushka
Thangkhiew i/b. Vesta Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Akshay R. Kapadia, for the Respondents.
__________
Kartikeya Goti, PA
Page 1 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2025 23:13:58 :::
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 05th DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed by an unfortunate woman
through her father, fighting for her survival, due to neglect and
economic harassment meted by the Respondent-Husband, by
refusing to provide her with financial assistance, which is
indispensible due to her near vegetative state. The Petition is
challenging the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai, Mazgaon, (hereinafter
referred to as, 'Sessions Court') in Criminal Appeal No.498 of 2022,
thereby reducing the amount of maintenance granted to the
Petitioner by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27 th Court,
Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as 'MM Court') from Rs.
1,20,000/- to a paltry amount of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. towards the
maintenance of the Petitioner.
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
3. The factual background giving rise to the present Writ
Petition can be summarized as under :
(i) The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1
was solemnized on 20.01.2016 at Mumbai as per Hindu Rites and
Customs.
(ii) The Petitioner was employed in Mumbai at the time of her
marriage, while Respondent No.1, who is a Chartered Accountant
(CA) by profession, was residing in the UK. Since Respondent No.1
was residing and employed in UK, the parents of the Petitioner
voluntarily contributed Rs.30 lakhs to assist her with her initial
matrimonial arrangements and her relocation to the UK after
marriage.
(iii) It is alleged that, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have expressed
their dissatisfaction with the Petitioner's ability to perform her
household responsibilities, while she was engaged in her
professional commitments. The conduct of Respondent Nos.2 and 3
created emotional strain and pressure on the Petitioner.
(iv) When she relocated to the UK on 10.05.2016, to join
Respondent No. 1 at his residence in Swindon, Wiltshire, after her
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
arrival, disagreements arose between the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 1, regarding the contribution towards the
household expenses as well as the distribution of domestic
responsibilities. These disagreements gradually escalated into
regular verbal exchanges. Due to her initial unemployment,
Respondent No. 1 expressed his dissatisfaction and considered her
as a financial burden to him.
(v) On 06.02.2017, the Petitioner suddenly suffered a
catastrophic neurological medical emergency. All of a sudden, she
had a collapse at home and was immediately required to be moved
to the Great Western Hospital, Swindon. She was diagnosed with a
Posterior Fossa Haemorrhage Secondary to an Arteriovenous
Malformation Rupture leading to Vasospasm and Quadriparesis.
Due to her critical condition, she was required to be transferred to
St. George's Hospital, London, where she underwent neurosurgery
and remained in the Intensive Care Unit for extended postoperative
care.
(vi) Upon receiving the intimation about the critical condition of
the Petitioner, her father travelled to the UK and remained by her
side during the critical months that followed. After prolonged
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
ventilator support and an unstable condition for several days, the
doctors anticipated that it would require a prolonged phase of
rehabilitation for the Petitioner, involving physiotherapy,
occupational therapy and speech therapy.
(vii) The Petitioner was thereafter transferred to the Royal
Hospital for Neuro Disability at Putney, London, for her
rehabilitation. The Petitioner required complete assistance for
eating, toileting, and all her movements and communication.
4. Since the doctors opined that, the chances of recovery of the
Petitioner were bleak and her vegetative state was likely to remain
for a prolonged period, the father of the Petitioner decided to
return to India and accordingly, he brought the Petitioner back to
India under medical supervision on 13.01.2018. Since then, she
has been residing with her parents.
5. Since her return to India, the Petitioner has been medically
dependent and requires round-the-clock nursing assistance
together with regular physiotherapy, speech therapy and
neurological follow-ups. Her recurring monthly expenses range
between 1 lakh to 2 lakh p.m. Though Respondent No. 1 had
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
assured the father of the Petitioner that, he would transfer Rs.
1,50,000/- p.m. to support the treatment of the Petitioner after her
return to India, he has not honoured the assurance given by him,
except for a few sporadic payments made by him, he did not
contribute towards her expenses. He neither arranged for her long-
term rehabilitation in India as well in the UK, nor did he visit her
after March 2018.
6. It is on this background that the Petitioner was constrained to
file proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (DV Act) before the MM Court. In her Application, she has
invoked orders of protection, residence, monetary relief for
ongoing medical care as well as compensation quantified at
Rs. 3 crore under Section 22 of the DV Act. It is submitted that, the
Petitioner has demonstrated before the learned Magistrate, the
manner in which she suffered severe emotional and economic
abuse and her abandonment by Respondent No.1, during her
Medical emergency and also after her return to India. The
Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated before the Court that,
Respondent No.1 has failed to provide financial support to the
Petitioner commensurating with her needs by placing on record the
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
invoices of physiotherapy, nursing charges, fees for neurological
consultation, cost of assistive equipments, cost of transport, etc. in
support of her claim for maintenance.
7. The claim of the Petitioner was opposed by Respondent No.1
contending that, the parents of the Petitioner had, against his
wishes, moved the Petitioner to India. Her treatment as well as
rehabilitative expenses were covered by the Medical Insurance
available to him in the UK. In spite of the best available treatment
in the UK, which was covered by insurance, the parents of the
Petitioner discharged the Petitioner from the hospital against the
advice of the doctors and moved her to India. While doing so, the
father of Respondent No. 1 took upon himself the responsibility of
the Petitioner without burdening him in any manner.
8. It is his further defence that his employment status had
undergone a substantial change, he had also returned from the UK,
and was no longer earning any income comparable to his earlier
salary in the UK. He placed on record an affidavit of his earnings,
where he disclosed a significantly lower income. He claimed that,
his finances had been reduced considerably, therefore, he was not
able to meet the quantum of maintenance claimed by the
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
Petitioner.
9. The learned Advocate submits that, after considering the rival
submissions, the learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on
30.07.2022, recording the medical condition and the requirement
of the quantum of expenditure for the treatment of the Petitioner
and, taking into account the salary record of Respondent No. 1
during his tenure in the UK, passed an order granting interim
maintenance of Rs. 1,20,000/- p.m. towards the maintenance of
the Petitioner and also directed him to pay the arrears of
maintenance for 36 months preceding the date of the passing of
the order, to be cleared by paying an additional 1 lakh per month
till the entire arrears of Rs. 43,20,000/- were cleared.
10. Being aggrieved by the order granting maintenance to the
Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 has filed Appeal No. 498 of 2022
before the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. While filing the
criminal appeal, Respondent No. 1 has also preferred an
application for stay in Miscellaneous Application No. 1792 of 2022
seeking suspension of monetary direction issued by the MM Court.
This application for stay was heard by the Sessions Court at a
preliminary stage and, vide order dated 18.12.2022, directed the
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
Respondent to pay an ad-hoc reduced amount of Rs. 50,000/- p.m.
during the pendency of the appeal. This order passed by the
Sessions Court was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court. This
Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3444 of 2024 set aside the
order of the Sessions Court dated 08.11.2023 and directed the
Sessions Court to decide the Criminal Appeal expeditiously,
considering the medical condition of the Petitioner, which required
uninterrupted financial support.
11. Upon remand of the matter, the appeal of Respondent No. 1
was finally decided by the Sessions Court by reducing the financial
support of the Petitioner from Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- p.m.,
further directing the Respondent No.1 to pay the arrears in
instalments at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. instead of Rs. 1 lakh
p.m. as directed by the MM Court. This reduction in the amount is
the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
12. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has taken me through
the medical records of the Petitioner right from the UK to her
present medical condition in India, to demonstrate that the
Petitioner requires continuous monitoring, care and assistance for
her day-to-day survival. It is submitted that the neurological
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
impairment of the Petitioner is of a permanent nature, which is
likely to continue in the near future, yet the Sessions Court has
reduced the amount on the assumption that the Petitioner is not
undergoing 'extensive treatment', which is in fact contrary to her
medical record. It is submitted that, though the Sessions Court has
proceeded on the assumption that no treatment is necessary, the
fact remains that the neurological rehabilitation of the Petitioner
requires physiotherapy, full-time nursing assistance and regular
consultation with her doctors. Therefore, merely because no
medicines are administered to the Petitioner, it cannot be said that
no expenses are required to be incurred for her treatment.
13. The learned Advocate further submits that the Sessions Court
has committed a grave error in treating the voluntary support
extended by the father of the Petitioner, as a ground to reduce the
financial responsibility of Respondent No.1, which, in fact, is a
statutory obligation, more particularly under Section 20 of the DV
Act, which casts a responsibility solely upon the husband to provide
monetary relief to meet the expenses of his wife. The learned
Advocate has relied upon Rajnesh V/s. Neha & Anr.1, more
particularly, on Para Nos. 90.4 and 93, which reads thus :
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
"90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to
be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife
and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a
position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held
by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani
[Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 :
AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to
establish with necessary material that there are sufficient
grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family,
and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his
control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount
of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the
court.
93. Serious disability or ill health of a spouse,
child/children from the marriage/dependent relative who
require constant care and recurrent expenditure, would
also be a relevant consideration while quantifying
maintenance."
14. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the
Sessions Court, reducing the maintenance amount, admissible to
the Petitioner is required to be quashed by restoring the order
passed by the MM Court.
15. Responding to the submissions of the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner, Mr. Akshay Kapadia, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.1 submits that the Judge, Sessions Court, has
considered the significant change in his financial status after
returning to India and that he is not earning anywhere close to the
figures reflected in his earlier salary documents from the UK.
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
Accordingly, taking a realistic approach, the Sessions Court has
passed an order reducing the maintenance proportionate to his
income, rather than speculating on his earning capacity. He further
submits that, in fact, the father of the Petitioner had taken over the
responsibility of the Petitioner while moving over to India,
accordingly, the essential needs of the Petitioner are being taken
care of by her father. Therefore, considering the voluntary
assistance available to the Petitioner, such assistance needs to be
considered while determining the interim maintenance.
16. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that, after the
illness of the Petitioner, the mental state of Respondent No.1 was
unstable; therefore, he was not able to perform well in his job in
the UK. He was, therefore, constrained to quit his job in the UK and
move back to India to live with his aged parents by seeking
employment at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, which is his native place.
According to him, the Petitioner has made an exaggerated claim,
and the father of the Petitioner is trying to exploit the situation due
to the illness of the Petitioner to extract money from him.
17. It is not disputed that, the Petitioner is in a vegetative state,
and the doctors have not prescribed medication for her. According
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
to him, after coming back to India, the Petitioner was required to
be hospitalized only once. Therefore, the expenses shown towards
hospitalization, doctors' visits, emergency charges for
hospitalization, electricity, and ancillary expenses of Rs. 20,000/-
are nothing but non-existent expenses, which are claimed from
him. He further submits that, now that he has moved back to India
and is residing at Bhavnagar, he is ready to take care of the
Petitioner if she shifts to Bhavnagar. He has never refused to take
care of the Petitioner if she shifts to Bhavnagar to reside with him.
Therefore, considering his financial incapacity and the
inflated claims made by the Petitioner, the Judge, Sessions Court,
has taken a very balanced view and has reduced the amount of
maintenance to Rs. 50,000/- p.m., which is sufficient to take care
of the needs of the Petitioner. As such, the order passed by the
Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, does not deserve any
interference, and the present Writ Petition deserves to be
dismissed.
18. I have heard the parties and, with their assistance, perused
the documents placed on record. After carefully considering the
rival submissions, the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
limited only to the extent of modification of the order passed by
the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, reducing the amount of
maintenance and the resultant reduction of arrears admissible to
the Petitioner. Whether such reduction is justifiable in the given
circumstances and the available record is the seminal question that
is required to be answered.
19. Admittedly, the orders have been passed on the Interim
Application filed under Section 23 of the PWDVA Act, pending the
adjudication of the application filed by the Petitioner under Section
12 of the said Act. Therefore, once having satisfied that there is
domestic violence on the basis of prima facie material available on
record, the powers are conferred on the Magistrate to pass
appropriate order, as provided under Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
and 23 of the PWDV Act.
20. In the present case, from the averments made in the
Application, the Petitioner has proved that there was a prima facie
case of Domestic Violence by Respondent No.1. Specific averments
are made by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 has neglected
and failed to provide financial support in her present condition of
near-vegetative state. It is a settled position of law that it is the
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
responsibility of an able-bodied husband to maintain his wife. In
the present case, the Petitioner is suffering from irreversible and
severe neurological disability and has no independent source of
income. Her incapacity is to such an extent that she is incapable of
communicating, except through her next friend, in the present case
her father. It is trite law that, it is the responsibility of the husband
to maintain his wife. It would be apposite to refer to Para Nos.79
and 80 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajnesh (supra), which reads thus :
"79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v.
Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ)
712] this Court held that the financial position of the
parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of
interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that
the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent
income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a
claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could
support herself. The court must take into consideration the
status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for
her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual
situations; the court should mould the claim for
maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the
husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own
maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is
obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be
required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the
appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court
must have due regard to the standard of living of the
husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high
costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve
him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-
bodied and has educational qualifications."
21. Having regard to the present state of the Petitioner, the
learned Magistrate has taken into account the qualifications and
the income of the Respondent while working in the UK to draw an
inference about the admissibility of maintenance to the Petitioner.
Although the Petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,08,000/-
p.m., in proportion to the earning capacity of the Respondent, viz.,
Rs. 5 lakh p.m., an order directing Rs. 1,20,000/- p.m. towards
maintenance of the Petitioner has been passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mulund, Mumbai. Even though the Respondent has
denied the income and claimed that his income is nil, he has not
believed it. Rightly so, considering his qualifications and the
income drawn by him while residing in the UK, it is not believable
that his income would be nil after relocating to India.
22. Reliance is placed on a document, namely, Nationwide
Employee Services, Swindon, to demonstrate that the Respondent
was drawing a salary of £34,953 p.a. Comparing the two
statements-one of the Respondent showing his income as nil, while
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
the other, a document produced on record viz., the Nationwide
Employee Services, Swindon, showing the salary of the Respondent
at the rate of £34,953 p.a., the learned Magistrate has granted a
proportionate amount towards the interim maintenance.
23. In the Appeal filed by the Respondent, it was contended that,
the father of the Respondent had taken the full responsibility,
including finances and costs related to the care fo the Petitioner
and after returning to India, because of greed of money, a false
complaint is filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of the DV
Act. It was further contended that, the father of the Respondent has
established business since last 35 years, therefore, he is in a much
better financial position than the Respondent. He has again
agitated the same ground about his unemployment after relocating
to India. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has admitted that
assuming that, the Petitioner was brought to India against the
medical advice in the UK, it cannot be said that, the father of the
Petitioner had any ill-motive to do so. It cannot absolve the
responsibility of the Respondent No.1 of maintaining the Petitioner
being his legally weded wife. It is also recorded that, it does not
appear that, after bringing the Petitioner to India, the Respondent
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
No.1 has incurred any amount on the treatment of the Petitioner
probably because the father of the Petitioner has taken the
responsibility. On this background, while passing order on the
entitlement of amount of interim maintenance, it is recorded that,
though the learned Magistrate has relied on the salary of £34,945/-
p.a., but while granting the proportionate maintenance, the
learned Magistrate has not taken into account the tax implications
of at least 40% of the earnings, in the UK. Though he admits that,
the Respondent No.1 has not placed on record any such proof of
tax deduction, yet, on his own, on the basis of google search, the
learned Sessions Judge, has arrived at a conclusion that, the
Respondent No.1 must be receiving monthly salary of Rs.
2,12,000/- applying the exchange rate of Rs. 91 INR existing in the
year 2016. Having regard to the personal expenses of Respondent
No.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has arrived at a figure
of Rs.50,000/- p.m. as a reasonable amount for medical expenses
of the Petitioner.
24. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on his own has,
arrived at a conclusion that, the claim of Rs.2,08,000/- p.m. as
claimed by the Petitioner appears to be excessive and inflated
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
assuming that, the Petitioner was in the need of only nursing and
physiotherapy. Therefore, it was not necessary to grant
Rs.1,20,000/- p.m., therefore, the Trial Court has committed an
error while assessing amount in correct manner. This assumption of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that the Petitioner was not
presently undergoing 'extensive treatment', and therefore, no
expenses are required to be incurred, is erroneous and contrary to
the record, unsupported by any evidence. The above observation
appears to be made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by
harping on the belief that, treatment means some aggressive action
taken by the medicos like the surgery or the hospitalization. He has
failed to appreciate that, the Petitioner is undergoing neurological
rehabilitation, which requires continuous therapy, nursing and
medical support. Therefore, the interpretation of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, it totally perverse and contrary to the
record, which can be gathered from the report submitted by the
Para Legal Volunteers (hereinafter referred to as 'PLV') pursuant to
the order by this Court.
25. At the outset, it would be necessary to consider whether the
amount granted by the Trial Court is inflated. This Court vide order
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
dated 25.08.2025, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, has been pleased to appoint to PLV to visit the
Petitioner and submit a report to this Court. Accordingly, a report
has been submitted by the PLV dated 11.09.2025. The report
contains details of the background information of the Petitioner
and the observations made by the PLV. According to the observation
made by the PLV, the Petitioner was lying in the bed in completely
dependent state, with no verbal communication or even through
gestures. She is unable to consume food orally. A Percutaneous
Endoscopic Gastrotomy (hereinafter referred to as 'PEG') tube is
inserted in her abdomen. She is given liquid food and water via
injection though the PEG tube. Feeding is conducted every two
hours, which is prepared in a liquid form. She is entirely dependent
on caregivers for personal and medical care. Two caregivers are
employed for day time care and another for the night. She
undergoes regular physiotherapy at home as per the ongoing care
plan. She is diaper dependent. In the conclusion, it is observed
that, while physiotherapy is being provided prognosis for recovery
remains extremely limited.
In view of the aforementioned report, it is very much
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
apparent that, the Petitioner is completely dependent for her needs,
which is being taken care of by the caregivers round-the-clock. It is
also necessary to appreciate that, since the food is administered
through the PEG tube she must be in need of medical supervision
and assistance at regular intervals as there are fair chances of
getting infected. On this background,the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-
awarded by the Trial Court appears to be a reasonable amount.
26. Admittedly, the amount of maintenance has been granted by
the Trial Court based on the document produced by the Petitioner
reflecting his annual salary. Since the Respondent has failed to
produce on record the details of his income, such as the bank
statements, ITRs and other documents, in spite of granting
sufficient opportunity, the Respondent has not produced the
documents required as mandated by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) as a result, the Trial
Court has passed an order drawing inference on the basis of his
qualifications, his tenure of residence in the UK and the proof in
support of his income reflected in the Nationwide Employee
Services, Swindon, which is not disputed.
27. Though the Respondent has claimed that, there was change
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
in his income due to relocating to India, however he has not
produced any documents about his relocation with resignation or
termination letter. He has merely produced a communication
showing that, he has been offered employment in India, which is
not supported by proof. Hence, in view of the foregoing
observations, the order of the Sessions Court reducing the amount
of maintenance from Rs.1,20,000/- p.m. to Rs.50,000/-, based on
erroneous findings warrants interference by this Court.
28. The order under challenge being outcome of interim
maintenance granted to the Petitioner is only a temporary measure,
the monetary relief has been granted pending the substantive
Application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act. In view of the
circumstances and the observation made hereinabove, it would in
the interest of justice to restore the order passed by the Trial Court
by setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Gr. Mumbai, Mazgaon, in Criminal Appeal No.498 of 2022.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms :
(1) The order dated 11.07.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai, Mazgaon, in Criminal
Appeal No.498 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
Kartikeya Goti, PA
904-WP-4000-2024(FCJ).doc
the order dated 30.07.2022, passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Mumbai, in CC No.81/DV/2019, is
restored.
(2) There shall be no order as to cost.
29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)
Kartikeya Goti, PA
