1 Revn.: 23/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2010 IN SESSIONS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.176 OF 2009 IN CASE NO.14/N/2009 Mrs. Mrunal Sandeep Ahire .... Applicant Vs. Sandeep Purushottam Ahire & .... Respondents State of Maharashtra Mr. Santosh Pawar, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 21st December, 2010 P.C. 1. This criminal revision application filed by the wife challenges the order dated 29th May 2009 passed by the trial Court on the application filed by respondent no.1-husband under Section 25(2) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for modification of the order of maintenance and residence. 2. By the order dated 31st March 2008, the trial Court had allowed the application for interim reliefs filed by the respondent-wife and directed the applicant to pay a sum of 2 Revn.: 23/2010 Rs.2500/- per month towards alternate suitable accommodation and a sum of Rs.3000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.1 and Rs.1000/- per month for minor child from the date of the order. This order came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter the applicant filed application under Section 25(2) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming change in the circumstance i.e. loss of job by him. The applicant claimed that since he was a jobless person, the interim order of maintenance was required to be modified. The applicant produced his termination order on record. The applicant-wife neither challenged the documents produced, nor the fact that the applicant had lost his job. She also did not contend that respondent no.1 was serving elsewhere. In that circumstance, the trial Court modified the order of maintenance by reducing amount of Rs.2500/- payable for the accommodation to Rs. 1500/- and the amount of maintenance payable to the applicant from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/- 3. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the first order of grant of maintenance came to be confirmed to the Sessions Court, respondent no.1 could not have filed application for modification under Section 25(2) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3 Revn.: 23/2010 There is no substance in the submission, because a specific provision is made under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for modification of interim order, in case of change in the circumstances. It has next been contended that the termination order produced by respondent no.1 before the trial Court had not been proved properly. The trial Court has noted that the fact of termination of service of respondent no.1 has not been seriously challenged by the applicant. Therefore, there is no substance in the second contention either. The trial Court has despite loss of service by respondent no.1 has only reduced the amount of maintenance. The reduction is also seen to be reasonable. Hence, the order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. The application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)