YOGESH CHANDRAKANT WAGHMAREversusLEENA YOGESH WAGHMARE AND ORS

        Digitally
        signed by
        NISHA
NISHA   SANDEEP                                               wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt
SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS Date:
        2026.09.28
        15:25:37     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
        +0530             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3677 OF 2024
                                         WITH
                          INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3253 OF 2026
                                          IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3677 OF 2024
               Yogesh Chandrakant Waghmare,
               Aged about 38 years,
               Residing at Room No.4, E/7,
               Deonar Municipal Colony Bus Stop,
               Mumbai – 400 043.                                   …Petitioner

                        Versus

               1.    Leena Yogesh Waghmare,
                     Aged about 36 years,
                     Residing at Flat No. B/202, C-49, Bageshri
                     C.H.S. Ltd., Gokuldham, Goregaon (E),
                     Mumbai – 400 063.

               2.    Chandrakant Damodar Waghmare,
                     Adult.

               3.    Sujata Chandrakant Waghmare,
                     Adult.

               4.    Smita Chandrakant Waghmare,
                     Adult,
                     All residing at Room No. 4, E/7,
                     Deonar Municipal Colony Bus Stop,
                     Mumbai – 400 043.

               5.    State of Maharashtra                    …Respondents

               Mr. Pravin Pillay, for the Petitioner.




                       N. S. Chitnis                                     1/8
                                                wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

Mr. Siddhartha Shah a/w Ms. Riya Rele i/b Mr. Siddhartha Shah
and Associates, for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Tanveer Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.5-State.

               CORAM          : ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
              RESERVED ON    : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026
              PRONOUNCED ON : 28th SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.          Rule.       Rule is made returnable forthwith with the

consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned

counsel appearing for the Respondents waive notice on behalf of

the respective Respondents.



2.            By way of this petition, the Petitioner-husband has

assailed the orders dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, 67th Court, Borivali, Mumbai (“JMFC”), in a

proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act”) inter alia granting monetary compensation

of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent No. 1-wife, which was further

confirmed by the Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai vide its order

dated 16.07.2024. The Petitioner-husband along with his father,

mother and married sister (in-laws of the Respondent No.1-wife),

who are arraigned as Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively in the




        N. S. Chitnis                                      2/8
                                                    wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

petition are facing proceedings under the PWDV Act, by way of

C.C.No.213/DV/2019 before the learned JMFC, 67 th Court,

Borivali, Mumbai. Upon an application by the Respondent No.1-

wife seeking interim monetary compensation invoking Section 23 of

the PWDV Act, the learned JMFC passed an order dated

25.08.2023 in her favour granting her monetary compensation of

Rs.10,000/- per month.

             Aggrieved   by   this   order,   the    Petitioner-husband

approached the Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai, by way of an

Appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, assailing the order of

the learned JMFC on several grounds.

             By way of the impugned order dated 16.07.2024, the

Sessions Court dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner-husband,

against which the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this

Court.



3.           Heard Mr. Pillay, for the Petitioner, Mr. Shah for

Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.5-State.



4.           The learned counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the

concurrent findings saddling him with monetary compensation to



         N. S. Chitnis                                         3/8
                                                wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

be paid to the Respondent No.1-wife to the extent of Rs.10,000/-

on several counts. He contends that the order of the learned JMFC

has not taken into consideration the fact that the Respondent No.1-

wife is in a sound financial condition and has sufficient income

which is borne out by the material on record. He submits that the

learned JMFC has ignored the relevant factors for deciding the

quantum of maintenance of a wife who seeks monetary

compensation against the husband under the PWDV Act. Lastly, he

contended that the real income of the wife is suppressed and she has

not produced the Income Tax Returns as envisaged by law. Thus,

the computation of the learned JMFC in arriving at figure of

Rs.10,000/- is flawed, erroneous and suffers from non-application

of mind.



5.          Countering these submissions, learned counsel for the

Respondent No.1-wife invited my attention to both the concurrent

findings, arguing that the aspect of sufficiency of the compensation

and comparison between the relative incomes of the husband and

wife are disputed questions of fact which ought not to be considered

by this Court in writ jurisdiction. He also submitted that the order

of the learned JMFC dated 25.08.2023 is neither unreasonable nor



        N. S. Chitnis                                      4/8
                                                 wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

excessive and considers the documents relied upon by the rival

parties. Similarly, the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Sessions

Court at Dindoshi, also considers the Annual Income of the

husband in juxtaposition with the wife and on the basis of the

documents on record arrives at the subjective satisfaction that the

appeal of the Petitioner-husband deserves to be rejected.



6.          Appreciating the rival submissions, it emerges with

clarity that the challenge to the concurrent findings which is

mounted by the Petitioner-husband must be considered from the

conspectus of the parameters exercised by this Court in its writ

jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, this Court cannot deal with the disputed

questions of fact agitated by either of the parties and must confine

its scrutiny only to whether the orders impugned by the Petitioner-

husband are in consonance with law and reflect application of mind

and reasoning. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.2023

records that although, the wife has sought interim maintenance

(monetary compensation) to the extent of Rs.50,000/- the learned

JMFC has observed that the same is unreasonable and considering

the relative living standards of the husband and wife and their

economic and educational background, has awarded a monthly



        N. S. Chitnis                                       5/8
                                                wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. This order is passed by the learned

JMFC invoking his powers to grant interim orders under Section 23

of PWDV Act. Needless to state that the power exercised by the

learned JMFC is in the nature of a discretionary relief. Therefore,

what needs to be examined is whether the discretion exercised by

the learned JMFC is arbitrary or capricious. The impugned order

records an observation that the Respondent No.1-wife has

established a prima facie case of commission of Domestic Violence

and after considering the relative social and economic backgrounds

of the husband and wife proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is

not for this Court to get into the disputed questions of fact

regarding the income and expenditure of the husband and wife,

since that is an aspect to be considered by the learned Trial Court

during the course of the proceedings pending before it.



7.          Examining the impugned order of the Sessions Court at

Dindoshi dated 16.07.2024, which rejects the Appeal of the

Petitioner-husband, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has

taken into consideration the annual incomes of the husband and

wife. He has perused the bank statement entries of the Petitioner-

husband and has observed that the income of the Petitioner-husband



        N. S. Chitnis                                      6/8
                                                  wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

is higher than that which is shown in his income tax return. He has

also noted that the relative income and expenditure statements can

be considered at the time of trial and has relied on the Judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of Shalu Ojha v/s Prashant Ojha1,

holding that the duty of the Court while providing interim

maintenance is to ensure that the immediate financial needs of the

aggrieved parties are met. The purpose of the interim maintenance

is to prevent undue hardship and to ensure a basic standard of living

for the aggrieved party.       With these observations the learned

Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal of the Petitioner. I find that

the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 is neither arbitrary nor

capricious and rightly exercises the appellate jurisdiction vested in

the learned Sessions Judge. I find force in the submission of the

learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-wife that this Court in its

writ jurisdiction ought not to enter into disputed questions of facts.

Consequently, the challenge to both the impugned orders and the

concurrent findings against the Petitioner-husband must fail.

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

               It is made clear that this Court has not commented on

the merits of the Domestic Violence proceedings before the learned

1. (2015) 2 SCC 99




          N. S. Chitnis                                      7/8
                                             wp.3677.2024w..ia(j).odt

JMFC and those proceedings may continue uninfluenced with the

aforesaid observations.

            With the disposal of the writ petition, accompanying

Interim Application does not survive. The same is disposed of

accordingly.




                                         ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.




        N. S. Chitnis                                   8/8