1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 701 OF 2009 Hansraj Vasanji Shah & Ors. ..Applicants versus Kalpana Vasant Shah & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar i/b. Mr. R. K. Mehta for Applicants. Mrs. Vidya Gaikwad with Mr. S. Dubey for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. A. Shaikh - APP for Respondent No. 2 - State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : MAY 07, 2010. P.C. : 1. The present revision application arises out of the concurrent orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund dated 25th March 2009 in Case No.02/N/2009 filed by the respondent no.1 herein thereby awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 31st August 2009 in Revision Application No. 493 of 2009 thereby dismissing the revision application. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits 2 that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act would not be applicable unless the learned Magistrate comes to a prima facie satisfaction that a domestic violence is inflicted upon the complainant. He further submits that as per the family arrangement recorded earlier respondent no.1 is running a saree centre in the name of Pooja Saree Centre or Gayatri Collections. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 on the contrary submits that the respondent no. 1 is not running any such shop. However, the signatures of the respondent no.1 were obtained under coercion on certain documents. 4. In view of the disputed position as to whether in fact the respondent no.1 runs any shop or not in the premises in which the applicants claim that she runs a shop, the learned APP was requested to direct the P.I. Mulund Police Station to conduct a discreet enquiry. 5. Accordingly, a report is placed on record by the learned APP. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. From the said report, it can be seen that prior to the separation of the respondent no.1 and her husband from the family, the mother in law i.e. wife of the applicant no. 1 was running a wholesale saree business. It is categorically stated that from last 7 to 8 years no such business is being carried out in the said 3 premises. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court. However, I find that the order which directs maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for respondent no.1 and Rs.2,500/- each for her two daughters is exorbitant and has been passed only on the conjectures and surmises. In any case it is only by way of an interim measure and before the final orders are passed the evidence to be led on behalf of the parties will have to be taken into consideration. 7. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the concurrent orders, the amount of Rs.10,000/ is modified and it is directed that the applicants will be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- each to the respondent no.1 and to both the daughters by way of interim maintenance. To clarify the total amount payable would be Rs.6,000/- per month. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)