( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4117 OF 2009 Dadarao Mukund Vilaspure APPLICANT VERSUS Kavita Sachin Vilaspure RESPONDENT .... Mr. B.R. Loya, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.B. Ghute, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the directions of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur on stay application (Exh-5) in Criminal Appeal No. 56/2009. 2. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 3. The respondent initiated proceedings (STCC No. 721/2007) under the provisions of the Protection of Women from ( 2 ) Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 20th June, 2009, granted the application. The applicant is father-in-law of the complainant i.e. the respondent. The learned Magistrate directed the husband of the applicant to deposit Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation payable to the respondent, to make available facility of alternative accommodation of two (2) rooms and a bath-room, alongwith latrine and also to pay Rs. 700/- p.m. by way of maintenance allowance to her. The order came to be challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No. 56/2009. The appellate Court stayed the order to the extent of making available alternative accommodation on condition that the applicant and the husband of the complainant - Respondent would deposit Rs. 10,000/- and would pay the monthly maintenance allowance. 4. The impugned order is rendered in the exercise of judicial discretion available to the appellate Court. It cannot be said that the discretion is exercised unreasonably. The husband has not challenged the order in question. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned order is onerous and the applicant is likely to be put in financial crisis. I do not agree. It is well settled that interim orders of the appellate Court cannot be interfered with unless there is strong case made out to infer that such ( 3 ) order is quite arbitrary or capricious. No such case is made out by the applicant. Hence, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4117-09