SANJAY VITTHAL POWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                       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 3 rd
         Digitally
         signed by
         TALLE
         SHUBHAM
                      October, 2003, issued by the Applicant to the Respondent to call upon her to
TALLE
SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO
ASHOKRAO Date:
         2026.08.29
         10:46:09
         +0530
                      come for cohabitation, and lastly, drew my attention to a stamp paper
                      Shubham                                                                     Page 1 of 4
                                                                 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                                                                     Page 2 of 4
                                                                  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                                                                      Page 3 of 4
                                                                  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                                                                      Page 4 of 4