933.WP-5305.26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5305 OF 2026 Ravi Mukesh Agrawal … Petitioner V/s. Puneeta Ravi Agrawal Nee Puneeta Sharma & Anr. … Respondents ______________________ Mr. Pradyuman Agrawal (through VC) a/w Mr. Bhushan Shinde, Mr. Anshu Agrawal and Ms. Trusha Chowbe i/by Pushpa Ganediwala & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani, Ms. Ridhima Mangaonkar i/by Inderpal Singh Nirmale & Sumati Gupta for Respondent No.1. Ms. S.M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent No.2-State. ______________________ CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 9 OCTOBER 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Yadav, learned APP for the Respondent No.2-State. 2. By this writ petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 23 September 2026 passed by the Page 1 PPN 933.WP-5305.26.DOC learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2026 as also the order dated 21 February 2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in Interim Application filed in DV Application No.333 of 2022. 3. Learned JMFC has granted maintenance of Rs.4,00,000/- to Respondent No.1 as also to two twin daughters who are minor of 8 years. Learned Appellate Court has observed that although the Petitioner in his affidavit of disclosure has stated that he is working as Wealth Manager with Motilal Oswal Wealth, however, salary slips which are produced alongwith appeal memo by the Petitioner himself shows that he is working as a Senior Vice President with Motilal Oswal Wealth. 4. It is further submitted that although it is stated by the Petitioner that his fixed gross annual salary in the year 2024-2025 is Rs.51,75,000/-, his income-tax returns for the said year shows that his income is Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores only) annually. Page 2 PPN 933.WP-5305.26.DOC 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that on the basis of the chart produced at page 407 that the assumption of the learned Appellate Court is not proper, however, it is not denied that as per the income-tax return, Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores only) is received by the Petitioner for the financial year 2024-2025. 6. It is admitted position that the Petitioner and the Respondent are having two twin daughters of 8 years and both of them are being maintained single handedly by the Respondent- mother. Although it is contended that the Respondent-wife is also having income, her income is only Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs. Three lacs Fifty Thousand Only). 7. Considering the status of the parties, the maintenance of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lacs only) granted to the Respondent as also to two twin daughters is reasonable. 8. In the facts and circumstnces, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order under the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which is an equitable jurisdiction. Page 3 PPN 933.WP-5305.26.DOC 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4 PPN