1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1416 OF 2010 Vijay Karsandas Bhagdev .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Shobha Vijay Bhagdev & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. G.N. Salunkhe, Advocate for petitioner Mr. M.V. Aiya, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is preferred to challenge the order dated 15th April 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded to respondent no.1, wife in a proceedings filed under Section 23 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. 2. Respondent No.1 has filed proceedings under the Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act being CC. No.171/N/2009, in which 2 the trial Court by its order dated 18th December 2009 directed the applicant to pay Rs.2500/- per month by way of maintenance and Rs.1500/- per month by way of medical expenses to respondent no.1 and her daughters. Original accused nos. 2 and 3 i.e. father and brother-in-law of respondent no.1 were directed to allow respondent no. 1 to reside in the house at Thane. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the maintenance awarded, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court being Appeal No.62 of 2010. The appeal was contested by the applicant and other accused persons. After hearing of the parties, the Sessions Court allowed the criminal appeal and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs.10,000/-. The applicant was also directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month for medical expenses of the daughters and Rs.3,000/- per month for making arrangements for their residence. Admittedly the applicant has not made any payment of maintenance since the date of the order of the Sessions Court. After the matter was heard on the last occasion, it was adjourned today to enable Mr. Salunkhe to take instructions from the applicant as regards the arrears of maintenance. Mr. Salunkhe states that the applicant is residing 3 somewhere in Gujarat and today his whereabouts are not known to him. He also states that original accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the brother and father of the applicant are not willing to support him. Mr. Aiya, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that since passing of the impugned order, all the accused persons have disposed off the residential premises and shops. He has produced copies of agreements of sale and points out that both the properties have been sold to the near relatives i.e. the maternal uncle and paternal uncle of the applicant. In this way, the applicant is in fact avoiding to pay maintenance to respondent no.1 and her children. 3. Since the applicant has not complied with the order passed by the court and has not even shown his readiness to comply with the orders of the court by depositing the amount of arrears of maintenance in the Court, he is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)