1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.155 OF 2011 Ghoush Hafez Pasha & Others .. Petitioners V/s Smt.Farida bi W/o.Gaush Pasha & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Tejas Dande for the petitioners. Mrs.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 13th October, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai below Exhibit 1 in C.C.No.269/Misc./2010. By that order, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to secure same level of alternative accommodation for Respondent No.1 or to pay rent for the same to Respondent No.1 @ Rs.1500/- per month from the date of the application. The learned Magistrate further directed the petitioner to pay monthly allowance to Respondent No.1 @ Rs.2000/- p.m. for herself and @ Rs.1500/- p.m.to her daughter from the date of filing of the application. 2 2. In support of this petition, Mr.Tejas Dande submitted that the marriage between the parties was dissolved by Khulanama executed on 19.06.2010. The amounts which were agreed to be paid under the said Khulanama have been paid to Respondent No. 1. Under the said Khulanama, provision of house at Harsan was made in favour of the Respondent No.1. She was given full authority to dispose of the said house and Respondent No.1 has transferred the said property on 21.06.2010. In view thereof, he submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In so far as the contention based on Khulanama is concerned, prima facie it cannot be accepted at this stage in view of full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dagadu Chotu Pathan V/s.Rahimbi Dagadu Pathan, 2007 All M.R. (Cri.) 1230 wherein it is held that it is required to be proved that the Talaq is given by following the essential conditions precedent to Talaq. 4. On the basis of material on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that prima facie Respondent No.1 has established 3 that the petitioner herein has committed acts of domestic violence. As far as maintenance aspect is concerned, it was observed that Respondent No.1 has no source of income and it is not possible for her to make her own arrangement for her residence. Considering the costs of living in Mumbai, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month to Respondent No.1 and @ Rs.1500/- per month to the daughter of Respondent No.1, which is inclusive of expenses for their other needs like medical expenses. 5. I do not find that the learned Magistrate has committed any error while arriving at this conclusion. It also cannot be said that the maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate is either exorbitant or unreasonable. The learned counsel submitted that at any rate the direction issued by the learned Magistrate for payment of Rs.1500/- p.m., towards rent or to provide same level of alternative accommodation requires to be set aside as the petitioner has made provision of the house in Khulanama. I do not find any substance in this submission. The marriage between the parties was admittedly solemnized in Mumbai on 26.01.2006 and the 1st Respondent is presently residing in Mumbai. The provision 4 of house in Khulanama is at Harsan, Karnataka State. The contention of the petitioner that Respondent No.1 has already disposed of the property at Harsan is concerned, the same is required to be established by leading cogent evidence. 6. Considering the fact that the learned Magistrate has disposed of the interim application, the parties would be at liberty to substantiate their contention at the time of final disposal of the main complaint. Hence, no interference is called for at this stage. Petition fails and the same is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)