1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.904 OF 2010 Naved Salim Shaikh ..... Petitioner. v/s Smt. Nurunnisa Naved Shaikh & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 22ND APRIL, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. By this Petition, Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District – Thane in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner confirming the judgment and order passed by JMFC dated 23/11/2009 on interim application for maintenance filed by wife at Exhibit-20 in OMA No.490 of 2008. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Protection of 2 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would not apply in the present case since the respondent No.1 is a divorced wife and that Petitioner had given talaq to her and that being the position, the application itself filed by the the Respondent No.1 was liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that in the application for maintenance which was filed by the Respondent No.1 – wife, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the Petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs 3000/- per month. Against the said order, Petitioner filed criminal appeal in the Court of District judge, Thane vide Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2009. The Sessions Court, however, was pleased to confirm the said order. It is firstly submitted that since Respondent No.1 is a divorcee she is not entitled to maintenance under the Muslim Law. Secondly, it is submitted that the Trial Court had erred in granting maintenance from the date of the main application. Thirdly, it is submitted that if the amount is withdrawn by Respondent No.1, she may be directed to give indemnity bond that in the event Petitioner succeeds then the said amount would be refunded to him. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court has passed the order on the interim application for maintenance filed by the wife. Both the courts below have observed that the plea raised by the Petitioner herein that the Respondent No.1 – wife is a divorcee would be considered at the hearing of the 3 main application. 5. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said order. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 should be directed to furnish any security before withdrawing the said amount. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. (V.M. KANADE, J.)