283.19revn (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2019 VIJAY S/O. GANGADHAR ROHAKLE AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR ….. Mr S. R. Sapkal, Advocate for Applicant Ms B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent No.1/State Mr Vidhan D. Khivesara, Advocate h/f Mr A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr Sapkal, learned Advocate for the applicants, learned APP Ms Gunjal for respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate Mr Khivesara holding for Advocate Mr Bajaj for respondent No.2. 2. Mr Sapkal, learned Advocate for applicants submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parner (JMFC) dismissed Criminal Application No.144/2012, filed by respondent No.2/wife vide order dated 06/01/2015. The said application was preferred under Sections 12, 18(a)(b)(e), 20(1) and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said order, learned JMFC 2026:BHC-AUG:41724 283.19revn (2) observed that respondent/wife had admitted that there was no domestic violence to her at the hands of applicants, and therefore, learned JMFC proceeded to reject the said application by considering her evidence. 3. Mr Sapkal then submits that, respondent/wife preferred appeal challenging the aforesaid order before the learned Sessions Court, Ahmednagar under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.147/2016. He further points out that the applicant could not be represented through anybody before the said Appellate Court and the impugned order dated 06/08/2019 is passed behind his back, thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 06/01/2015, passed by the learned JMFC, Parner. Vide the said impugned order dated 06/08/2019, the applicant No.1/husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- p.m to respondent/wife. 4. Mr Sapkal then submits that the learned Sessions Court has not properly considered the scope of the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Thus, according to him, learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order. He, therefore, prays for allowing this revision application by setting aside the impugned order. 283.19revn (3) 5. Per contra, Mr Khivesara, learned Advocate holding for Advocate Mr Bajaj for respondent/wife strongly opposes this revision application. He states that ground of not giving opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Court to the applicant, cannot be considered, for the reason that the applicant was served and he himself failed to appear before the learned Sessions Court, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is correct and requires no interference by this Court. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, it is found that initially respondent/wife had filed proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said proceedings there was a specific issue came to be framed as regards, as to whether there exists domestic violence to the respondent/wife at the hands of applicant/husband. While recording finding, the learned JMFC observed that, as the wife herself admitted on various occasions that there was no ill-treatment to her at the hands of applicants, after recording evidence, learned JMFC rejected the said application. However, learned Sessions Court, without accepting the said evidence, proceeded further to upset the finding of the learned JMFC. The applicant or his Advocate could not appear before the 283.19revn (4) Sessions Court to submit their defence. Consequently, the applicant was deprived of an opportunity of being heard before the learned Sessions Court when the impugned order was passed. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that this matter needs to be remanded back to the learned Sessions Court for a fresh hearing. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (I) The revision application is partly allowed. (II) The order dated 06/08/2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No.147/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. (III) Learned Additional Sessions Court, Ahmednagar is directed to take fresh hearing on the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.147/2016 and to take decision on the same, within a period of three months, by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties. (IV) Criminal Revision Application disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk