- 1 - 1774.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.WRIT PETITION NO.1774 OF 2011 Sagar D.Bansode .. Petitioner vs 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.Smt Sumita Sagar Bansode . Respondents Mr. Amin H.Solkar i.b Mr.Santosh Deshpande for Petitioner Mr. S.S.Pednekar APP for State Mr. G.V.Nagarsheth for Respt no.2 CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 3rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard finally. Respondent no.2 Smt Sumita Bansode initiated proceedings under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide C.C.NO. 89/N/2010 before the learned 27 th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Mulund alleging domestic violence against her husband-Petitioner and sought reliefs. By - 2 - 1774.11 virtue of exercise of powers under section 23 (2) of the said Act, pending section 12 Petition, the learned Judge on 23.8.2010 directed the Petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 4000/- as maintainance from the date of Application and also pay Rs.4000/- as monthly rent for separate residence if the Petitioner fails to provide the respondent- wife alternate accommodation. This order was challenged by the Petitioner-husband before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.485 of 2010 and by an order dated 8.4.2011 the order referred above was confirmed. Hence, the challenge in the present Petition. 2. Before the learned Judge, passbook showing income and source thereof was indicated. The Petitioner claimed to be earning monthly salary of Rs.13,500/- being employed at Chartered Accountant's firm. He - 3 - 1774.11 had placed salary cheque and bank statement before the learned Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the same as he found one or two entries were showing as amount of Rs.10.825/- or at Rs. 13,800/-. 3. The stand that the Petitioner was earning Rs.13,500/- is not raised for the first time before this Court. It was raised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge; the certificate is annexed to the Petition showing monthly income/salary of the Petitioner to be Rs.13,500/-. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that though she is self-employed however, her income is not of that competence to meet the daily needs of life including meeting expenses for separate residence. Earlier she was residing in a - 4 - 1774.11 rented flat at Mira Road at rental of Rs. 4000/-. However, she has now shifted to Mulund where she is paying rental amount of Rs.6500/- per month. Learned counsel for the Respondent reiterate the order under challenge does not call for any interference. 5. One should not be oblivious that proceedings and grant of order of maintenance was interim in its nature. Parties are yet to adduce evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. Parties have lost their comfort levels with each other due to various reasons as are pleaded in several proceedings. Even marriage solemnised on 23.1.2010 at Mulund is yet to be claimed by the wife to be a nullity. - 5 - 1774.11 6. Revisiting prima facie facts, I find the learned Additional Sessions Judge was swayed away from the entry of Rs.10,800/- not matching to the salary of the husband or grant of compensation. Counsel for the respondent-wife states that the statement which was enclosed should have been considered to its prima facie worth at a particular stage of the proceedings. 7. If the respondent-wife is residing nearby her parental house at Mulund and pays Rs.6500/- it is her choice and it is for her convenience. However, the Petitioner-husband earning Rs.13,500/- cannot be additionally asked to scuff Rs.4000/- to provide such separate residence. Since the main Petition under section 12 has its own ramifications on merits and demerits, I find the order of separate residence that by directing Rs. 4000/- is on higher side contrary to the - 6 - 1774.11 source of income of the Petitioner-husband. Hence, the following order : i) The maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.4000/- as directed and confirmed by the appellate Court is not disturbed, However, order of providing Rs.4000/- as separate residence to the wife- respondent is quashed. The learned Judge seized with the proceedings shall ensure to complete the same expeditiously considering the nature of accusations of each of the parties and ticklish issues they are agitating. Petition partly allowed as above. Needless to add the learned Judge seized with the main Petition shall independently decide the claims and contentions of the respective parties on its own merits. K.U.Chandiwal, J