RAJASHAD SHAIKHversusRIJVANA RAJASHAD SHAIKH AND OTHERS

                                                                 13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 60 OF 2026

         Rajashad Shaikh
         45 years of age, Service
         Residing at H. No.322,
         St Joaquim Road, Salcete, Margaon, Goa           .....Petitioner

               Vs.

1.       Mrs. Rijvana Rajashad Shaikh
         Age 45 years, Service

2.       Miss. Kanij Fatima Razashad Shaikh
         Age 12 years, Student

3.       Master Mohmad Zayn Razashad Shaikh
         Age 12 years, Student 2 & 3, Minor and represented
         Through Respondent No.1,
         All R/O Dattanagar, Koregaon,
         Tal- Koregaon, District Satara

4.       The State of Maharashtra,
         Through Public Prosecutor,
         Office at Kolhapur High Court,
         Kolhapur, Maharashtra                      .....Respondents

                                          ...
Mr. Agha Iftikhar (through vc) with Mr. Utkarsh Sawant (through vc) and
Mr. Sumit S. Dhanawade, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Anand Shalgaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
                                          ...

Suresh                                                                      Page 1 of 8
                                                                     13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt



                                       CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                       DATE  : AUGUST 28, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.                  Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally,

with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, at the admission

stage.

2.                  Perused the record and the judgment relied upon by the learned

Advocate for the Petitioner in Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.1 (for short “Rajnesh”).

3.                  The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 19 th

December 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Kopargaon, (for short the learned “Magistrate”) below Exhibit-30, in Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 2022, has invoked the jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (for short, “BNSS”) and has challenged the said order, whereby the

learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the Petitioner herein for

seeking direction to the Respondent to deliver the interrogatories as

contained in Annexure-I.

4.                  On 7th October 2022, the Respondent/Original Applicant filed

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 2022 before the learned

Magistrate, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) against the Petitioner.

1    AIR 2021 SC (Criminal) 729

Suresh                                                                          Page 2 of 8
                                                                13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt



5.          The Petitioner appeared in the said proceedings and filed his

reply. The Petitioner as well as the Respondent filed their respective

affidavits before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, on 6 th November 2025,

the Petitioner filed an Application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), seeking direction to the Respondent to

deliver the interrogatories as contained in Annexure-I. The Respondent filed

a reply to the said Application. After considering the rival contentions, the

learned Magistrate rejected the said Application at Exhibit-30. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ

Petition.

6.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, during the arguments, has

taken me through the Application filed by the Petitioner and the order passed

by the learned Trial Court thereon. He submits that the order passed by the

learned Magistrate apparently indicates non-application of mind, as the

Application was pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of

the Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate, while dealing with the same,

erred in recording that the said application was filed under the provisions of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the

“D.V. Act”) and accordingly framed the point for consideration and passed the

order.



Suresh                                                                     Page 3 of 8
                                                                 13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt




7.           He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the

law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). During his

submissions, he drew my attention to Clauses (a) and (f) (at page No.752 of

the said judgment) of para 17 of the judgment, Enclosure-I (at page No.764)

and, in particular, to Paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and Clause (G) of the said

Enclosure (at page No.765). Therefore, he argued that, in view of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), the Petitioner had

filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking a direction to the

Respondent to produce the relevant documents as per interrogatories, as set

out in Annexure-I to the said Application, in terms of Order XI Rule 1 of the

C.P.C. Therefore, he emphasised that, while passing the order, the learned

Judge has not applied his mind and erred in recording that the Application

was filed under the provisions of the D.V. Act and passed the impugned

order. Hence, he urged that the same be set aside and the Petition be allowed.

8.           In response, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 does not

dispute the law laid down in Rajnesh (supra). However, he submitted that

Respondent No. 2 undertakes to produce the bank account statements for the

last financial year and Income Tax Returns for the last three years preceding

the Application before the learned Trial Court and is also ready to file the

declaration as contemplated in Rajnesh (supra). He fairly submitted that the

learned Trial Court has erred in considering the Application under the

Suresh                                                                      Page 4 of 8
                                                                            13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt



provisions of the D.V. Act instead of under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and

submitted to the order of the Court.

9.                Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone

through the impugned order, the record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), I find substance in the submissions of the

learned Advocate of the Petitioner that the learned Judge did not apply his

mind while dealing with the Application Exhibit 30. It is evident that

Respondent No. 1 herein has filed the proceedings under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C., wherein the Petitioner has moved an Application below Exhibit-30,

seeking a direction to the Respondent to produce the relevant documents as

per interrogatories, as set out in Annexure-I to the said Application, in terms

of Order XI Rule 1 of the C.P.C., in view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra).

10.               The learned Judge, in Paragraph No.1, has observed that “the

present application has been filed in the proceedings under the D.V. Act

contending that such interrogation is necessary for the proper adjudication of

the interim Application. Based on the averment in the Application, the

learned Judge framed the following points for consideration, which read as

under:

     Sr. No.                   Points for consideration                      Findings
         1)    Whether the Respondent is entitled to seek interrogatories        No
               (interrogation) of the Applicant at the stage of interim
               proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act?
Suresh                                                                                 Page 5 of 8
                                                                  13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt




         2)   What order?                                      Application           is
                                                               rejected.



11.             It is pertinent to note that though the learned Magistrate has

categorically observed that the case law relied upon by the Petitioner, i.e. the

Applicant, applies to the present Application . Despite holding the same, the

learned Magistrate has committed a blunder by ignoring the guidelines laid

down therein and erred in rejecting the Application on the ground that it is

not maintainable to seek an interrogation of the applicant at the interim stage.

It is also observed that “At the stage of deciding interim relief under section

23 of the D.V. Act, the Court is not expected to permit detailed interrogation,

cross-examination, or discovery, as it would amount to conducting a mini-

trial”.

12.             The recording of the said findings by the learned Magistrate

appears to be contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajnesh (supra). Thus, it is evident that the order passed by the

learned Magistrate is ex facie against the guidelines and cannot be sustained

in the eyes of law. On the other hand, the Application in question is squarely

covered by the dictum and guidelines laid down in Rajnesh (supra).

13.             In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the dictum and

guidelines laid down in Rajnesh (supra), I find that the Petitioner has made

out a case for invoking the inherent power of this Court. Therefore, in my
Suresh                                                                       Page 6 of 8
                                                                       13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt



view, the impugned order needs to be set aside in exercise of writ

jurisdiction.

14.             However, a balance must be maintained while passing the order,

as the test for determining maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on

the husband's financial status and the standard of living of the wife to which

she was accustomed in her matrimonial home. At the same time, the wife’s

financial status/income must be taken into consideration while determining

the question of maintenance.

15.             In the wake of the above, in my view, the Petitioner is also

required to be directed to follow the guidelines laid down in Rajesh (Supra).

16.             Consequently, the Petition is allowed as under.

                (i)    The impugned order dated 19th December 2025
                passed by the learned Magistrate below, Exhibit-30, in
                Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 2022 is
                hereby quashed and set aside.

                (ii)   The Petition/husband as well as Respondent No.
                1/wife are directed to follow the guidelines laid down in
                Rajnesh (supra), and to produce the relevant documents as
                per interrogatories/ as set out in Clauses (a) and (f) (at page
                No.752 of the said judgment) of para 17 of the judgment
                and as per Enclosure-I (at page No.764) and, in particular,
                to Paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and Clause (G) of the said
                Enclosure (at page No.765), in terms of Order XI Rule 1 of
                the Code of Civil Procedure.
Suresh                                                                            Page 7 of 8
                                                            13-WP-60-2026 (CR).odt



17.      Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

18.      Inform the concerned court accordingly.

19.      Writ Petition is disposed of.




                                               (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)




Suresh                                                                 Page 8 of 8