1 WP : 1676/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1676 OF 2010 Shri Sanjay Gopal Bhosale & Ors. …. Petitioners Vs. Sou. Vidya Sanjay Bhosale & Ors. …. Respondents Mr. S.H. Yadav, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for State. Coram : A.S. Oka, J. Date : 20th September 2011 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. The first respondent-wife made an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). In the said application, an interim order was made by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioners to pay maintenance of Rs.400/- each per month to the 1st respondent-wife of the 1st petitioner and minor daughter. 2 WP : 1676/2010 In appeal, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has enhanced the amount to Rs.1,000/- per month. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 7/12 extract placed on record shows that a share has been given to the 1st respondent in property bearing gat No.225. He submitted that the 1st respondent is also given a house property. His submission is that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay interim maintenance as per the order of the learned Magistrate, but the Sessions Court granted excessive amount. 4. Perusal of the 7/12 extract annexed to petition shows that petitioner has a share in land bearing gat No.225 along with several members of the family of the petitioners. The case made out by the 1st respondent was that the petitioners are not allowing her to use the properties. After considering the fact that the petitioners and their family members are residing together and after finding that the maintenance of Rs.400/- per month each is not sufficient to maintain 1st respondent and her daughter, interim maintenance @1,000/- per month each has been fixed by the Sessions Court. 3 WP : 1676/2010 5. This is not a case in which interference can be made by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 are pending, the 1st petitioner can always bring the impugned order to the notice of the concerned court. No interference is called for. The petition is rejected. ( A.S. Oka, J.)