Advocates:
['KULKARNI MUKUL S', 'Nagode D G', '', 'Nagode D G']

1

919 W.P.799.2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

919 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.799 OF 2022

JASWANT BHAGWANRAO IRALE

VERSUS

MADHURI W/O. JASWANT IRALE

...

Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. D. G. Nagode, Advocate for Respondent.

...

CORAM :

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.

DATE :

21^st September, 2022.

Per Court:

.

Heard finally with consent of both the sides.

2

The petitioner has challenged the order of interim

maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Court No.7, Ahmednagar in PWDV No.1008 of 2016 below Exhibit-20

dated 26^th March, 2019 and upheld by the appellate authority /

Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar while deciding in Criminal

Appeal No.97 of 2019 dated 16^th December, 2021.

3

Heard Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. D. G. Nagode, learned counsel for the respondent.

2

919 W.P.799.2022.odt

4

Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submitted that the respondent while submitting an application for

interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “DV Act”) has

suppressed the fact of getting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per

month awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in a

proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He

submitted that it is a suppression of material fact from the Court. He

then invited my attention to the affidavit of the present respondent

about her income, assets and liabilities produced before the learned

Magistrate and pointed out that in her statement on oath, she has

stated that previously she had employment on contractual basis and

getting some income per month, but on the date of sworning the

affidavit, she had no job and she had no source of income. He invited

my attention to the various contractual orders, which are at page

Nos.163, 165, 167, 169 and 174. He submitted that contractual

appointment of the respondent was renewed from year to year basis.

She was getting salary of Rs.8,000/- per month in the year 2018 and

as per her contractual appointment dated 3^rd March, 2022, she is now

drawing salary at the rate of Rs.19,635/- per month. He submitted that

it is again suppression of material fact from the Court while obtaining

the order of interim maintenance in a DV Act proceedings.

3

919 W.P.799.2022.odt

5

Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that various proceedings are filed by the respondent against the

present petitioner seeking maintenance. One under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, second under the DV Act and third under

the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He submitted that the

respondent has also prayed for interim maintenance in a proceedings

in a civil suit under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, but her

prayer for interim maintenance came to be rejected by the Civil Court.

He further pointed out that the order of interim maintenance passed by

the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month is not challenged by the

respondent before the higher Court. She has also not challenged the

rejection of her interim maintenance passed by the Civil Court.

6

Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submitted that the respondent is getting good salary. That aspect was

not considered by the learned Magistrate while deciding the quantum

of interim maintenance as well as the order of interim maintenance

passed earlier in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that in view of landmark

decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another,

AIR 2021 SC 569, the Honourable Supreme Court has issued

4

919 W.P.799.2022.odt

certain guidelines regarding adjustment of maintenance order

passed