1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2009 In CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.520 OF 2009 Mrs.Rimpi Manish Jain : Applicant V/s. Manishkumar Rajkumar Jain & Anr. : Respondents ... Mrs.Rimpi Jain, applicant present in person. Mr.Rajesh Singh for respondent no.1. Mr.S.N.Gawde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this application, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 to provide rented accommodation by way of interim relief. The applicant-wife has challenged the order dated 1.2.2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. By the order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, has partly allowed her application for interim relief and directed the respondent no.1 to pay interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant and at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant’s daughter from the date of 2 the application. Admittedly, the Court has directed the respondent no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- earlier by an order dated 9.5.2002. The respondent no.1 has also been directed to return all the streedhan articles of the applicant. This Court had issued rule in the matter on 17.7.2009 and granted liberty to the applicant to take out a separate application for interim relief. Hence, this application. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that the parties agreed to submit their disputes to mediation of Mr.Justice R.J.Kochar (Retd.). The learned Mediator has, however, submitted a failure report which suggests that the situation is irreconcilable. The applicant in person vehemently submitted that this Court should direct the respondent no.1 to provide rented accommodation to the applicant by way of interim relief along with the amount of maintenance. She submitted that she is at present living with her father and also made an oral submission that her father is not likely to have his shelter for long. The applicant further submitted that the respondent no.1 is in business of diamond and is in a position to afford a rented house for her and her daughter. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 referred to the affidavit of the respondent no.1 in which he has denied that he is in diamond business as an owner. The learned counsel for the respondent 3 no.1 submitted that the respondent no.1 does not own any diamond business, but referred to the affidavit of the respondent no.1 where he has stated vide paragraph 5(b) that he is drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- from the firm by name M/s.Siddharth Place, having their office at 56, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun, Uttaranchal—248 001. The applicant also relied on the affidavit of the respondent no.1 before the Supreme Court where the respondent no.1 stated that he is the only one who “is to take care of his business.” According to the applicant, this proves that he is the owner of the business. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that this statement was made in the context of business of his maternal aunt which the respondent no.1 had to manage at that time. It seems that there is a serious controversy on facts which can be adjudicated upon properly only at the stage of final hearing of the matter. It may be noted that at the hearing of this application, the applicant declined to accept any accommodation in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, offered to her by the respondent no.1 on the ground that it is not possible for her to stay at Meerut since, according to her, it is not possible for her to live with her daughter at Meerut. The respondent The respondent no.1 stated that he is not in a position to provide her accommodation at Dehradun where there is likely to be two much marital strife within the house. It may be noted that this petition is filed against an interim order and it would not be appropriate to pass an interim order directing the respondent 4 no.1 to provide a rented accommodation to the applicant in Mumbai as prayed for. 4. This Criminal Application stands disposed of. 5. The petition should be put up for final hearing in the week commencing on 5.10.2009. S.A. BOBDE, J.