11-IA-3595-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.532 OF 2022 Bhupendra Chudgor & Anr. ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3595 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.532 OF 2022 Leena Chudgor ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Aditya Parmar (Through Video Conferencing), for the Applicants. Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State. Ms. Vidhya Mangavde (Through Video Conferencing), for Respondent No.2. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Date: 30 September 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Parmar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Ms. Mangavde, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. In this Criminal Revision Application, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 16th September 2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai in CC No. 581/SS/2013 as well as the Order dated 9th November 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.776 of 2019. Arjun 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.10.01 12:58:46 +0530 11-IA-3595-2025.doc 3. By the impugned Order dated 16th September 2019, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has partly allowed the said application bearing CC No. 581/SS/2013 filed seeking various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and prohibited the present Applicants from committing any act of domestic violence against Respondent No.2 and restrained the Applicants from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing possession from shared household and further directed Applicant No.1 to pay the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said Order has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court by the Order dated 9th November 2022. 4. The learned Trial Court has specifically recorded that it is an admitted position that Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 have resided in the subject house since their marriage. Thus, it is clear that the subject house is a shared household of Respondent No.2. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the said finding is not in accordance with the material on record. 5. Ms. Mangavde, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 states that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- has been granted to the Applicant. She submits that only an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- has been paid and the outstanding amount is Rs.11,40,000/-. She submits that Applicant No.1 is engaged in the business of diamond merchant and Arjun 2 11-IA-3595-2025.doc Respondent No.2 is a housewife. 6. Although it is the contention of Mr. Parmar, learned Counsel for the Applicants that now Applicant No.1 has stopped the said business. However, in the facts and circumstances, the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month is not exorbitant. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 is a housewife. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the impugned Orders under the limited jurisdiction of revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. 9. Mr. Parmar, learned Counsel for the Applicants, states that the Interim Application has been filed as the said residential premises has become dilapidated. Thus, if any modification is required in the impugned Order passed by the learned JMFC, the Applicants can file an appropriate application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate/concerned JMFC for modification of the Order. 10. However, it is clarified that before filing any such application seeking modification, the Order dated 16th September 2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai in CC No. 581/SS/2013 as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court restraining the Applicants from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing possession of Respondent No.2 from the shared household, Arjun 3 11-IA-3595-2025.doc is to be complied with. 11. The Applicants also to comply with the Order granting maintenance within a period of four weeks from today. 12. Accordingly, the Interim Application is also disposed of. [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 4