1 (crim appln 274 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2010 Nandkishor Sudam Dhankude ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Rahul Karnik for Applicant Mr. P.S. Hingorani -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This criminal revision application has been filed by the Applicant challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 3 rd July, 2010. 3. By the said order, the Learned District Judge was pleased to confirm the order of interim maintenance granted by the Learned Magistrate on an application 2 (crim appln 274 of 2010) filed by the Respondent wife. 4. An application was filed by the Respondent wife under the provisions of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). In the said complaint, an application was filed for interim maintenance. The Trial Court, after hearing both the sides, awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. This order has been confirmed by the Sessions Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the Applicant firstly submitted that the said Act came into force in the year 2005. He submitted that the Respondent wife is residing with her parents since 2002. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the Applicant having illicit relations with other woman. He submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove the income of the Applicant. 3 (crim appln 274 of 2010) 6. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Applicant. Both the Courts below after going through the material on record have granted interim maintenance to the Respondent-wife. In an application filed for interim maintenance under the said Act, at this stage, it is not necessary to prove the allegations. The Court has to see the prima facie material placed on record. Therefore, the amount of Rs.3,000/- , in my view, is not an excessive amount. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 8. Criminal revision application is, therefore, dismissed. The criminal application does not survive and, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)