1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3628/2009 Applicant :- Ashok Sheshrao Potfode Aged about 34 years, Occ. labour, Resident of Chikhalgaon, Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal. ...Versus... Non-Applicants:- 1. Shital w/o Ashok Potfode Aged about 30 years Occ. Beauty Parlour & Tuition Class R/o V.M. Taiwade 49, Pragati Colony, Kaloti Nagar, Amravati. 2. Master Sarvdnya son of Ashok Potfode, Aged about 2 yrs. & 11 months, Minor, through his Natural guardian mother the Non-applicant no.1, Resident of Amravati. ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ [Shri M.I. Dhatrak , Adv. for applicant] [Mrs. R. Waikar, Adv. for non-applicants] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 06.04.2010 1. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Appeal No.103/2008, confirming the order made by the trial Court in the matter of grant of interim maintenance in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. In support of the application, learned Counsel for the applicant argued that there is no prayer for grant of interim 2 maintenance. He then argued that there is no justification for granting the said order since the applicant is ready to maintain the wife and the child. He submitted that the applicant is a labourer and is not in a position to provide separate maintenance to the wife and child. 3. Learned Counsel for the non-applicants opposed the application and argued that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act were initiated and the Court has merely made interim arrangement in the form of interim maintenance and no interference can be made with the same order since the wife and the child have no means of maintenance. 4. I have gone through the impugned orders made by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and I find that good reasons have been assigned by the Courts below in awarding interim maintenance. Since the Court has a power to make final order of maintenance, the Court has a power to grant interim order of maintenance. The impugned orders show application of mind by the Courts below in granting maintenance. I find no merit in the present criminal application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE ssw