1 (crim appln 2437 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2437 OF 2010 Sanjay Ranjendra Prasad Dubey ...Petitioner vs. Sandhya Sanjay Dubey and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.S.V.Sadavarte a/w Mr.P.P. Bhalbar for Petitioner Mrs.M.R. Tidake -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), which was confirmed by the Sessions Court dated 25.6.2010. 3. By an order dated 11 th December, 2009, the learned 2 (crim appln 2437 of 2010) Magistrate was pleased to direct the Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to his wife – Respondent No.2 and Rs.2,000/- to his daughter. This order has been confirmed by the Sessions Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no documentary proof to show that the Petitioner is earning Rs.1,00,000/- for a month. It is submitted that he is merely a vendor, selling purses on the footpath. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed against all his relatives including the female relatives and therefore, the said complaint is not maintainable in view of definition in section 2(q) of the said Act and proviso thereto. He further submitted that the Petitioner, in fact, was assaulted by his wife and there is a sufficient material on record to establish this fact. 5. In my view, there is no error apparent on the face of record, committed by both the courts below and 3 (crim appln 2437 of 2010) this Court need not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion than the one recorded by the lower courts. The Trial Court after going through the material on record, has awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the daughter. In my view, the said amount is not unreasonable or excessive. Though the Petitioner has denied the contention raised by the Respondent in her complaint regarding his monthly earning Rs.1,00,000/-, but in fact, he has not produced any documentary evidence either in respect of his monthly income or that he is not earning that much amount. So far as the complaint under provisions of the said Act is concerned, in view of section 19 of the said Act, a complaint can be filed against the female relatives also for the purpose of obtaining an order of injunction restraining them from disturbing the possession of the wife. The order which is challenged is passed under section 12 of the said Act granting maintenance to the wife. In my view, such an 4 (crim appln 2437 of 2010) application is maintainable. 6. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Applicant, all the contentions raised regarding maintainability are kept open. (V.M. KANADE J.)