IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 1835 of 2010 Mrs Saba Arshi W/o Amiruddin Panhalkar vs. Amiruddin Mohiuddin and anr Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr V. N.Sagare, for the Applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, A.P.P.,for the State. Dr M. Shah Alamkhan for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 5TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent No.1 - husband. The applicant - wife has alleged that she was treated with cruelty by her husband and as such she was compelled to leave matrimonial house. 2. Marriage between the complainant and respondent No.1 took place in the year 1997. Initially, there was no quarrel between the parties within a year or two. One daughter and male child were born out of the said wedlock. Reportedly, in the year 2007 the present applicant - wife left the matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. Being aggrieved of such behaviour respondent-husband preferred an application for restitution of conjugal rights somewhere in September, 2009. In fact, reportedly, maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month is being paid by the present respondent No.1 to the applicant and small children. So also there is a case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act lodged against respondent No.1. Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 submitted that during the investigation in the said matter of Domestic Violence certain articles, allegedly the Stridhan of the present applicant, were seized and taken away by the police machinery. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of Stridhan property worth about Rs. 12 lakhs which was given to Respondent No.1 in the marriage. 4. Considering the rival submissions and considering the factual position as to marriage took place in the year 1997, an application of restitution of conjugal rights filed by the present respondent No.1 in the year 2007 when allegedly present applicant had left the matrimonail house and considering the pendency of the proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act initiated by the applicant, there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned in the present matter i.e.the grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the present respondent. In the result, the following order:- O R D E R: (a) Application for cancellation of bail is hereby rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)