(1) wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.232 OF 2026 CARLOS MANUEL TAVORA VERSUS ANURADHA TAVORA … Ms. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Anamika Rawal and Ms. Chandani Naik, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Akhil Parrikar and Ms. Dhanashree Korgaonkar, Advocates for Petitioner. … AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.230 OF 2026 ANURADHA TAVORA VERSUS CARLOS MANUEL TAVORA … Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Akhil Parrikar and Ms. Dhanashree Korgaonkar, Advocates for Petitioner. Ms. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Anamika Rawal and Ms. Chandani Naik, Advocates for Respondent. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner/husband impugns order dated 07.01.2026 passed by Sessions Judge, Merces in Criminal Application No.24/2018 and Criminal Application No.26/2018 as well as order dated 12.01.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, ‘C’ Court, Panaji, Goa in DVA/1/2017/C directing petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- per month to respondent from date of filing application. 2026:BHC-GOA:1939 (2) wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt The respondent/wife has also challenged same order in Writ Petition No.230/2026. (Parties are referred as per status in husband’s Writ Petition for convenience and brevity.) 2. On 16.04.2006, petitioner and respondent got married. They were residing together at Trionora, Panaji and thereafter shifted to bungalow at Dona Paula. In year 2017, respondent filed Case No.DVA/1/2017/C against petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act, 2005’) claiming reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 alongwith application for interim relief including grant of interim maintenance of Rs.3,34,000/- per month. The petitioner opposed application by filing reply. However, learned Magistrate passed order directing petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- per month to respondent as interim maintenance from date of filing application till final disposal. Aggrieved petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.24/2018 before Sessions Judge, North Goa, which was partly allowed, thereby modifying interim maintenance amount to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 3. Ms. A. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that respondent could not justify claim for interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month by filing necessary affidavit pertaining to expenditures towards her requirements. The Sessions Judge has practically approved requirements of Rs.70,000/- per months (3) wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt towards respondent’s maintenance. However, directed respondent to pay Rs.70,000/- per month to her, in addition to direction to deposit Rs.30,000/- in Appellate Court, which cannot be countenanced. The Appellate Court did not assign any reason to conclude that interim maintenance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be appropriate in facts of case. The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court failed to appreciate that petitioner had income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and overheads more than that amount. As such, it would be beyond his capacity to pay maintenance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 4. Per contra, Mr. Parag Rao, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-wife would submit that learned Magistrate had granted maintenance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month as against respondent’s claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.3,34,000/- per month. The petitioner is businessman having chain of hotels. His income is much more above as shown in Income Tax Returns. 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that both Writ Petition are arising out of common order of interim maintenance passed by Courts below under provisions of DV Act, 2005. There is no dispute as regards to domestic relationship between parties. The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court on appreciation of pleading and material on record, prima facie, recorded finding that respondent-wife was subjected (4) wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt to economic violence. She has been deprived of Credit Card and disposal of jointly owned property by husband using Power of Attorney. The respondent is not employed nor she has any source of income. The petitioner do not dispute that he has chain of hotels. No material regarding income from partnership firm is produced on record and respondent inspite of being shareholder in partnership firm, is kept away from control of business. In light of prima facie findings recorded by Courts below, only issue of quantum of maintenance requires consideration in these Writ Petitions. 6. The petitioner has filed Income Tax Returns depicting income in range of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. However, looking to prima facie evidence as to family foreign trips and lifestyle that they were living together, there is every room to believe that petitioner had income much more than depicted in Income Tax Returns, which are submitted before this Court. The petitioner has not placed on record details of income from business. Admittedly, respondent-wife is presently residing in a rented premises and required to spend Rs.25,000/- per month towards rent apart from salary of maid, electricity bill and expenditures towards food, medicine etc.. The Trial Court had accordingly assessed interim maintenance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month, which has been reduced by Appellate Court to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The petitioner is depositing amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards interim (5) wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt maintenance since 2018 without any difficulty. In this backdrop, it would not be appropriate for this Court to delve deep into rival contentions and re-assess appropriate amount of interim maintenance. It would be in interest of parties, if DVA proceeding which is pending for 9 years is directed to be decided expeditiously, so as to bring finality to litigation between parties. Hence, following order: ORDER a. Writ Petitions stand dismissed. b. The impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed by Sessions Judge, Merces in Criminal Application No.24/2018 and Criminal Application No.26/2018 is confirmed. c. The respondent-wife shall be entitled to withdraw interim maintenance amount deposited by petitioner @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month from date of institution of application for interim maintenance. d. The excess amount, if any, deposited with Courts be refunded to petitioner husband. The petitioner husband shall continue to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to respondent-wife till disposal of DVA/1/2017/C pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, ‘C’ Court, Panaji. (6) wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt e. The learned JMFC shall endeavour to decide DVA/1/2017/C expeditiously and in any case within period of six months from date of communication of this Court. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026