JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

Heard Mr. Atul Omkar Jauhari, the Petitioner in person as well as his wife Ms. Neena Atul Jauhari, the Respondent No. 2 in person.

2. The challenge in Writ Petition No. 124 of 2015 is to the orders dated 31st December, 2012 and 4th August, 2014 made by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act).

3. This Court, by order dated 21st December, 2016, issued rule in the Petition but declined the prayer for interim relief. The order dated 21st December, 2016 read thus:

1 The above Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 04/08/2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the judgment and order dated 31/12/2012 passed in the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being S.C.C. No.367 of 2008 is taken exception to by way of the above Petition.

2 There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the Petitioner herein has caused domestic violence to the Respondent wife. The said finding has been principally assailed in the above Petition.

3 Hence "Rule." The Respondent No.2 waives notice.

4. In terms of the final order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, Vashi, the Petitioner herein who was the Respondent in the said proceedings has been restrained from creating third party interest in the matrimonial house. In so far as the maintenance granted by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Thane is concerned, the said order has come to an end in view of the fact that the Marriage Petition filed by the Petitioner herein came to be dismissed by the said Court. Hence when the matter reached by way of an Appeal to the Sessions Court against the order dated 31/12/2012 passed by the learned CJJD & JMFC, Vashi, the Appellate Court having regard to the fact that the maintenance order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Thane has come to an end in view of the dismissal of the Marriage Petition filed by the Petitioner herein has enhanced the maintenance to the Respondent No.2 from Rs. 5,000/-to Rs. 25,000/-. This enhancement as indicated above is ascribable to the fact that the maintenance granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane has come to an end. The reason for grant of the said maintenance has been mentioned in the impugned order. 5 It is required to be noted that the Respondent No.2 herein is working as a Yoga Teacher from which, according to her, her income is ranging from Rs. 6,000/-to Rs. 8,000/-. The couple has two grown up children i.e. a son who is 26 years old who is pursuing management studies in IMT, Gaziyabad and a daughter who is 19 years old who is also pursuing management studies in SIES, Nerul, Navi Mumbai. The fees of the son and daughter are paid by the Petitioner. Undoubtedly there would be other expenses which the Respondent No.2 wife would have to take care of especially having regard to the fact that they are grown up children. In my view, therefore, no interim relief can be granted in respect of the amount of maintenance as also no interim relief can be granted in respect of the Respondent No.2 being permitted to occupy the bed room in the flat in question.

In the present matter, both Mr. Atul Jauhari and his wife Neeena Jauhari had applied to the Committee constituted under Chapter IVA (ii) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules for permission to appear in person. The Committee, after taking note of the fact that Mr. Atul made false statement, declined to accord any permission to Atul Jauhari to present his case in person. However, such permission was granted to his wife Ms. Neena.

5. Although, it is true that Atul Jauhari did make a false statement before the Committee, in the peculiar circumstances of the present matter, Atul Jauhari was permitted to present his case in person. Atul Jauhari poi