Bombay High Court

BHUPENDRA CHUDGOR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 30 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The Court held that the revision under Section 397 CrPC is not maintainable to disturb the magistrate’s order, and therefore the orders stand.

Summary

The Applicants challenged the legality of a September 2019 order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, which under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, restrained them from committing domestic violence, barred them from dispossessing the Respondent No.2 from the shared household, and directed maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month plus compensation. The order was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2022. In the revision application, the Court examined whether a criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could be entertained to set aside those orders. The Court found that the revision jurisdiction was limited and did not extend to interfering with the magistrate’s order under the domestic violence Act. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and the interim application seeking modification of the order was also disposed, with a direction that the Applicants comply with the maintenance order within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC is maintainable to interfere with an order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000 per month is excessive or liable to be altered on revision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Domestic Violence
Maintenance
Criminal Revision
Section 397 CrPC
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
Order Modification

Judgment

                                                                              11-IA-3595-2025.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.532 OF 2022
ARJUN
VITTHAL               Bhupendra Chudgor & Anr.                               ...Applicants
KUDHEKAR
Digitally signed by
                              Versus
ARJUN VITTHAL         The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        ...Respondents
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.10.01                                   WITH
12:58:46 +0530
                                    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
                                                        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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.