11-APL-40-2026 (CR).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2026. Sanjay Vitthal Powar ..… Applicant VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Anr ..… Respondents ... Mr. Anand S Patil (Through VC) a/w Mr. Soham V. Powar, Mr. Pratik B. Bhakare, Advocates for Applicant. Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP for Respondent No. 1-State. ... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Applicant has invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) to quash PWDVA Application No. 28 of 2025, filed under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “D.V. Act”), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kagal, District Kolhapur. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant at length. During the course of arguments, he took me through the Application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the learned Trial Court, the notice dated 3rd October, 2003, issued by the Applicant to the Respondent to call upon her to come for cohabitation, and lastly, drew my attention to a stamp paper Shubham TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2026.08.29 10:46:09 +0530 11-APL-40-2026 (CR).odt allegedly executed by the Respondent on 3rd November, 1989. He further submitted that, since 16th May, 2003, the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 have been residing separately and, therefore, on the ground of delay, the Application is not maintainable. He, therefore, urged for issuance of notice to the Respondents. 3. Perused the Application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and the record as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Applicant. 4. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant does not dispute his relationship with Respondent No. 2 as husband and wife. Similarly, on a query, the learned Advocate for the Applicant fairly submitted that the Applicant has not provided any permanent alimony or residence to Respondent No. 2. However, he submitted that the Applicant has been paying maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2. Still, he is not aware whether the said amount has been enhanced in the said maintenance proceedings. 5. The non-payment of permanent alimony or adequate monetary relief to Respondent No. 2, so as to enable her to live with dignity with the standard of her husband and lead her life peacefully, certainly entitles her to seek such reliefs under Sections 12, 19 and 20 of the D.V. Act. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicant that the Application, having been filed belatedly, Shubham 11-APL-40-2026 (CR).odt is not maintainable; on the contrary, non-payment of adequate monetary relief to her amounts to a continuing cause of action to file the Application. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan1, in paragraphs 15 to 17, has categorically dealt with the question of limitation and held that non-payment of adequate monetary relief to wife amounts to a continuing cause of action to file the Application under the provisions of the D. V. Act. Also, it is observed that there could never be a starting point of limitation from the date of filing of an Application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Such a starting point for limitation would arise only after there is a breach of any order. 7. Apart from that, the D.V. Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing an Application under Sections 12, 19 and 20 of the D.V. Act. But deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law amounts to domestic Violence as contemplated in the explanatory clause of Section 3, or the husband fails to provide monetary relief or residence/accommodation to the wife. In such an eventuality, a fresh cause of action would arise for the wife to prefer an Application, being an aggrieved person. Therefore, I do not find any substance in his contention in that regard. 1 AIR 2022 (SC) 2932 Shubham 11-APL-40-2026 (CR).odt 8. The next argument was about the issuance of the legal notice by the Applicant to the Respondent No. 2 as well as execution of the stamp paper by her; this demonstrates that Respondent No. 2 abused the provisions of law to harass the Applicant, particularly when she has been residing separately since 2003. However, I do not find any substance in the said argument, as the Applicant does not dispute that Respondent No. 2 is his wife. He has also not provided adequate monetary relief or permanent alimony to Respondent No. 2, so as to enable her to live with dignity with the standard of her husband and lead her life peacefully; she is certainly entitled to seek such reliefs under Sections 12, 19 and 20 of the D.V. Act. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said that Respondent No. 2 has abused the judicial process by filing the Application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. 9. That being so, in my view, the Applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 10. Consequently, the Application being bereft of merits stands dismissed. 11. Needless to clarify that the observations made above are prima facie in nature and shall not come in the way of the Applicant during the trial. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) Shubham