- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1495 OF 2008 Shridhar Chandrakant Walawalkar ...Petitioner vs. Anupama Shridhar Walawalkar ...Respondent Mr.Ashwin Shete i/b M/s.Khaitan & Jayakar for the Petitioner Ms A.T.Jhaveri A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 23,2008 : JULY 23,2008 : JULY 23,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the Petitioner-husband has challenged the order made in favour of the first Respondent-wife by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the first Respondent-wife. In a pending petition in the family Court, the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the first Respondent. In an Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, the Sessions Court has clarified that the order of the learned Magistrate by directing that the maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. will be inclusive of amount of maintenance payable under the order of the Family Court. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge in an Appeal preferred by the Petitioner. He pointed - 2 - out that the learned Judge found that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had not considered the order of interim maintenance passed by the Family Court. He submitted that as the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate were erroneous, Appeal ought to have been allowed. He submitted that the salary payable to the Petitioner is not Rs.15,000/- p.m. but take home salary is around Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. A complaint was filed by the first Respondent-wife under the provisions of section 18,19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The said order has been modified in Appeal to the extent that the sum of Rs.5,000/- will inclusive of Rs.3000/- under the orders passed by the Family Court. 4. I have considered the submissions. The order dated 20th September 2007 passed by the Family Court in a petition filed by the present petitioner records the submission of the petitioner that earlier his salary was Rs.10,400/- and the said salary was increased to Rs.11,400/- p.m. This is the statement of the petitioner recorded in order dated 20th September 2007. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the said order dated 20th September 2007 passed by the - 3 - Family Court. Considering the income of the petitioner, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has ordered payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. As per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the said amount of Rs.5,000/- will be inclusive of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m payable under the order of Family Court. The monthly income of the petitioner is admittedly more than Rs.11,000/-. It is well settled position of law that the power under section 482 of the said Code has to be exercised sparingly in very rare cases. No case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE