1 Orde in 406 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST)NO. 406 OF 2010 Navneet Tarachand Khosla ...Applicant Vs. Smt.Abha Jain Khosla & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Applicant present in person Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 23RD AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the Applicant, who is appearing in person. 2. In this Criminal Revision Application, the Applicant is challenging the ad-interim order passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai, whereby, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application filed by the Applicant for grant of stay to the operation of the order of the Learned Magistrate. 3. Brief facts are that the Respondent No.1-wife had filed petition in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said application was allowed by the learned Magistrate and the Applicant was directed to 2 Orde in 406 pay maintenance at the rate of 6,000/- p.m. and an order of injunction was also passed against the Applicant herein. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant had preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court while rejecting the application for stay to the said order, has observed that the appeal would be heard within 2 to 3 months and therefore, it did not grant stay to the operation of the Learned Magistrate's order. 5. The Applicant submitted that the Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the documents on which reliance was placed by the Applicant. He, secondly, submitted that the said Court is vacant for last two months. Thirdly, he submitted that four flats are in possession of his wife and if this fact had been taken into consideration, the Learned Sessions Judge would have granted stay to the operation of the order of the learned Magistrate. 6. In my view, it is not possible to accept these submissions made by the Applicant since the Applicant has challenged the order passed by the Learned Sessions Court on the stay application filed by him. 3 Orde in 406 In my view, it is not necessary to interfere with the said order refusing to grant stay. 7. The Sessions Court is directed to hear and decide the appeal filed by the Applicant within six weeks from today. All contentions raised by the Applicant in this revision application are kept open. The Sessions Court shall consider the submissions of the Applicant on merits and in accordance with law. 8. With these directions, the application is disposed of. Criminal Application No. 251 of 2010 does not survive and is also disposed of. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to apply. (V.M. KANADE J.)