CARLOS MANUEL TAVORAversusANURADHA TAVORA

2026:BHC-GOA:1939
                                         (1)                      wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.232 OF 2026

                                  CARLOS MANUEL TAVORA
                                             VERSUS
                                     ANURADHA TAVORA
                                                 …
               Ms. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Anamika Rawal and
               Ms. Chandani Naik, Advocates for Petitioner.
               Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Akhil Parrikar and Ms. Dhanashree
               Korgaonkar, Advocates for Petitioner.
                                                 …

                                        AND
                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.230 OF 2026

                                     ANURADHA TAVORA
                                             VERSUS
                                  CARLOS MANUEL TAVORA
                                                 …
               Mr. Parag Rao with Mr. Akhil Parrikar and Ms. Dhanashree
               Korgaonkar, Advocates for Petitioner.
               Ms. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Anamika Rawal and
               Ms. Chandani Naik, Advocates for Respondent.
                                                 …

                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                RESERVED ON   : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

               FINAL ORDER :-

               1.    The petitioner/husband impugns order dated 07.01.2026 passed

               by Sessions Judge, Merces in Criminal Application No.24/2018 and

               Criminal Application No.26/2018 as well as order dated 12.01.2018

               passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, ‘C’ Court, Panaji, Goa in

               DVA/1/2017/C directing petitioner to pay interim maintenance of

               Rs.1,20,000/- per month to respondent from date of filing application.
                           (2)                       wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt



The respondent/wife has also challenged same order in Writ Petition

No.230/2026.    (Parties are referred as per status in husband’s Writ

Petition for convenience and brevity.)


2.    On 16.04.2006, petitioner and respondent got married. They were

residing together at Trionora, Panaji and thereafter shifted to bungalow

at Dona Paula. In year 2017, respondent filed Case No.DVA/1/2017/C

against petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act, 2005’)

claiming reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 alongwith application for

interim relief including grant of interim maintenance of Rs.3,34,000/-

per month.     The petitioner opposed application by filing reply.

However, learned Magistrate passed order directing petitioner to pay

interim maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- per month to respondent as

interim maintenance from date of filing application till final disposal.

Aggrieved petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.24/2018 before Sessions

Judge, North Goa, which was partly allowed, thereby modifying interim

maintenance amount to Rs.1,00,000/- per month.


3.    Ms. A. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner

would submit that respondent could not justify claim for interim

maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month by filing necessary affidavit

pertaining to expenditures towards her requirements.        The Sessions

Judge has practically approved requirements of Rs.70,000/- per months
                            (3)                       wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt



towards respondent’s maintenance. However, directed respondent to

pay Rs.70,000/- per month to her, in addition to direction to deposit

Rs.30,000/- in Appellate Court, which cannot be countenanced. The

Appellate Court did not assign any reason to conclude that interim

maintenance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be appropriate in facts of

case. The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court failed to appreciate

that petitioner had income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and overheads

more than that amount. As such, it would be beyond his capacity to pay

maintenance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.


4.    Per contra, Mr. Parag Rao, learned Advocate appearing for

respondent-wife would submit that learned Magistrate had granted

maintenance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month as against respondent’s

claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.3,34,000/- per month.                  The

petitioner is businessman having chain of hotels. His income is much

more above as shown in Income Tax Returns.


5.    Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that both Writ Petition

are arising out of common order of interim maintenance passed by

Courts below under provisions of DV Act, 2005. There is no dispute as

regards to domestic relationship between parties. The Trial Court as

well as Appellate Court on appreciation of pleading and material on

record, prima facie, recorded finding that respondent-wife was subjected
                            (4)                       wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt



to economic violence.     She has been deprived of Credit Card and

disposal of jointly owned property by husband using Power of Attorney.

The respondent is not employed nor she has any source of income. The

petitioner do not dispute that he has chain of hotels.         No material

regarding income from partnership firm is produced on record and

respondent inspite of being shareholder in partnership firm, is kept away

from control of business. In light of prima facie findings recorded by

Courts below, only issue of quantum of maintenance requires

consideration in these Writ Petitions.


6.    The petitioner has filed Income Tax Returns depicting income in

range of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. However, looking to prima facie

evidence as to family foreign trips and lifestyle that they were living

together, there is every room to believe that petitioner had income much

more than depicted in Income Tax Returns, which are submitted before

this Court. The petitioner has not placed on record details of income

from business. Admittedly, respondent-wife is presently residing in a

rented premises and required to spend Rs.25,000/- per month towards

rent apart from salary of maid, electricity bill and expenditures towards

food, medicine etc.. The Trial Court had accordingly assessed interim

maintenance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month, which has been

reduced by Appellate Court to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The petitioner

is depositing amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards interim
                            (5)                        wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt



maintenance since 2018 without any difficulty. In this backdrop, it

would not be appropriate for this Court to delve deep into rival

contentions and re-assess appropriate amount of interim maintenance. It

would be in interest of parties, if DVA proceeding which is pending for

9 years is directed to be decided expeditiously, so as to bring finality to

litigation between parties. Hence, following order:

                                  ORDER

a.    Writ Petitions stand dismissed.


b.    The impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed by Sessions Judge,

Merces in Criminal Application No.24/2018 and Criminal Application

No.26/2018 is confirmed.


c.    The respondent-wife shall be entitled to withdraw interim

maintenance amount deposited by petitioner @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month

from date of institution of application for interim maintenance.


d.    The excess amount, if any, deposited with Courts be refunded to

petitioner husband.    The petitioner husband shall continue to pay

interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to respondent-wife till

disposal of DVA/1/2017/C pending before Judicial Magistrate First

Class, ‘C’ Court, Panaji.
                          (6)                      wpcr-230-2026 & anr..odt



e.       The learned JMFC shall endeavour to decide DVA/1/2017/C

expeditiously and in any case within period of six months from date of

communication of this Court.


                                      (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                               JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026