The applicants have challenged the legality and correctness of judgment and order dated 16th May, 2014 delivered by the I/c. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2013, whereby he confirmed the judgment and order dated 14th May, 2013, delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Court No.6), Jalgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.563 of 2011, directing applicant No.1 to pay maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.2000/- p.m. and further directing him to place the minor children namely Kalyani and Kunal, who were aged about 7 1/2 years and 4 1/2 years respectively in the year 2011, in the custody of respondent No.1 during summer vacations until they attain the age of majority and also to make necessary arrangements to facilitate respondent No.1 to meet her minor children during other holidays.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants, at the outset, submits that so far as the impugned order directing applicant No.1 to pay maintenance to respondent No.1 is concerned, applicant No.1 has no grievance. However, so far as the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”, for short) directing applicant No.1 to allow respondent No.1 to take the minor children into her custody during summer vacations and also to make necessary arrangements to facilitate respondent No.1 to meet the children during other holidays until they attain majority, which is permanent in nature, applicant No.1 has strong objections.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent No.1 herself left the house of applicant No.1 on 26th January, 2011 leaving both of the minor children at his house. Thereafter, she never cared for the children. Both the children are now taking education. Kalyani is studying in third Standard in Dahanukar English Medium School. She has obtained 99% marks in second Standard. She has been examined before the Trial Court. She herself states that she does not wish to reside with respondent No.1. Both the children were brought before this Court also, but they did not go with respondent No.1. Both the children are being maintained well by applicant No.1. He has taken every care to see welfare and safeguard the interests of the minor children. Respondent No.1 was not at all entitled to get custody of the minor children. The learned Counsel submits that the impugned order has the effect of granting permanent relief in respect of the custody of the children in favour of respondent No.1, which was beyond jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 21 of the Act. He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and order, to the extent of the directions given by the learned Magistrate in respect of custody of the children, may be quashed and set aside.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that though the words “temporary custody” has been used in Section 21 of the Act, purposive and liberal construction of the said words has to be made. According to him, the word “temporary” includes permanent as well. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and others, (2004) 3 SCC 199 and Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade, (2011) 3 SCC 650. He supports the impugned order as regards the directions given for the custody of the children and prays that the Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed.

5. The short question involved in this case is, whether the words “temporary custody” used in Section 21 of the Act, would refer to grant of custody of the children during pendency of the application filed under Section 12 of the Act or whether it could be granted permanently covering the period after disposal of that application as well.

6. Section 21 of the Act, reads as under :

“Custody orders.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may