1 3 wp.3076.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3076 OF 2010 Sandeep Ishwar Suryavanshi. ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Divendranath S. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S.Desai for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10 th October, 2011. P.C. 1 Not on board. Taken on board. 2 The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. 3 The Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 are husband and wife. An application was made by the Respondent No.2 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 2 3 wp.3076.10 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). In the said application, an application for interim relief was taken out by the Respondent No.2. One of the interim reliefs prayed for was of grant of monthly expenses of Rs.50,000/- per month including medical expenses, child education expenses on the ground that the Petitioner was earning salary of not less than Rs.4,00,000/- per month. 4 By the judgment and order dated 20 th November, 2008, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent No.2 with effect from 5 th June, 2008. The learned Magistrate held that the Respondent No.2 has no source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. An application was made by the Petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for rescinding or for setting aside the said order. The application was made on the ground that the Petitioner has been sacked from the employment with effect from 31 st July, 2009. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment and 3 3 wp.3076.10 order, the said appeal has been dismissed. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the learned Magistrate was exhorbitant. He submitted that in any case, it was pointed out to the Court of the learned Magistrate that though the Petitioner was employed in the U.S.A., his employment was terminated on 31 st July, 2009 and at present, he is jobless. His submission is that the termination from the employment of the Petitioner was a major change in the circumstances, which has not been considered by the learned Magistrate while deciding the subsequent application and by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding the appeal. His submission is that the Petitioner has been paying interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- fixed by this Court by way of interim relief. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and order. 6 I have carefully considered the submissions. The monthly 4 3 wp.3076.10 allowance of Rs.20,000/- has been granted by way of interim relief pending an application under Section 12 of the said Act to the Respondent No.2 – wife and the minor daughter. The Appellate Court has noted that the Petitioner is highly qualified and he holds B.E. degree in Electronics. The Appellate Court noted an admitted position that before shifting to U.S.A., the Petitioner was employed in a reputed company like Patni Computers. While rejecting the subsequent application made by the Petitioner, an order was passed by the learned Magistrate observing that the salary of the Petitioner in Indian currency was Rs.1,44,393.20 out of which he was paying a sum of Rs. 86,000/- by way of house rent. It was also observed that the Petitioner has acquired a B.E. degree in electronics in the year 1994 and was initially employed in a reputed company like Patni Computers. Thereafter, he shifted to U.S.A. and was drawing handsome salary. Assuming that the employment of the Petitioner in U.S.A. has been terminated, it is impossible to assume that after coming back to India, the Petitioner is without any job. Considering the lifestyle of the 5 3 wp.3076.10 Petitioner reflected from the fact that in U.S.A., he was paying house rent of Rs.86,000/-, monthly allowance of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the learned Magistrate for the benefit of the Respondent No.2 and minor daughter cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. 7 Hence, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. 8 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays that for depositing the arrears payable, time of one year may be granted and he may be permitted to pay arrears by monthly installments. He has tendered undertaking of the Petitioner, which is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 9 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 opposes the prayer for grant of installments. 10 In my view, as the Petitioner has given undertaking, time of one year deserves to be granted to deposit the arrears provided the 6 3 wp.3076.10 Petitioner deposits the arrears in equal monthly installments. 11 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs ; ii. The Petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of monthly allowance in terms of the order of the learned Magistrate to the Respondent No2 ; iii. Permission is granted to the Petitioner to pay arrears payable upto the end of September 2011 by equal monthly installments within a period of one year from today ; iv. It is made clear that from October 2011, the Petitioner shall pay monthly allowance of Rs. 20,000/- per month regularly and punctually ; v. The undertaking dated 7 th October, 2011 tendered today and marked 'X' for identification is accepted. vi. In case of any breach committed by the Petitioner of the said undertaking and in payment 7 3 wp.3076.10 of monthly installments as aforesaid, it will be open for the Respondent No.2 to file appropriate proceedings ; and vii. All contentions of the parties on the main application under Section 12 of the said Act are kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J ]