Dismissed¶¶41

Priti Amit Rita v. Amit Premji Rita and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2025WP/539/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DV Act maintenance — interim maintenance under S.23(2) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Article 227 challenge to Magistrate's grant of Rs.60,000/- p.m. and appellate reduction to Rs.45,000/- p.m. — false statement to trial court about ad-interim relief; unconditional apology — arrears Rs.26,95,000/- — wife's capacity as practising Advocate and Notary — both writ petitions dismissed, no costs. Priti Amit Rita v. Amit Premji Rita & Anr.; Amit Premji Rita v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Bombay High Court, 7th April 2025, Madhav J. Jamdar, J.

What did the court decide?

No relief to either party; both Writ Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs, the reduced maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month standing. ¶¶41

Priti Amit Rita vs Amit Premji Rita and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to either party; both Writ Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs, the reduced maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month standing.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 1st March 2023 granting interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month to the Respondent-Wife and the child calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the Husband (Writ Petition No.3769 of 2024). +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

No interference in the impugned orders is warranted at the instance of the Petitioner-Husband in the equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; the Husband's Writ Petition fails.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

A totally false statement was made before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that the High Court had granted ad-interim relief to the Petitioner-Husband, whereas it is an admitted position that no ad-interim or interim relief was ever granted to him; learned counsel stated the statement was inadvertent and tendered unconditional apology.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

An amount of about Rs.26,95,000/- remains outstanding towards maintenance even as per the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, showing that the Petitioner-Husband is not ready to pay maintenance to the child.ratio¶¶29
No interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 21st December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2023 reducing maintenance from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month, considering that the Respondent-Wife is now practicing as an Advocate and has been appointed as Notary; the Wife's Writ Petition fails.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), Criminal Writ Petition No.539 of 2024 with Criminal Writ Petition No.3769 of 2024, decided 7th April 2025. Cross-writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against (i) the order dated 1st March 2023 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai granting interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month to the wife and child under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in C.C. No.138/DV/2019, and (ii) the order dated 21st December 2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2023 reducing maintenance to Rs.45,000/- per month. The Husband's petition was refused, the Court recording that a totally false statement had been made before the Metropolitan Magistrate that the High Court had granted ad-interim relief when none existed (counsel tendering unconditional apology) and that arrears of about Rs.26,95,000/- remained unpaid. The Wife's challenge to the reduction also failed, the Court considering that she is now practicing as an Advocate (LLB 2009; practice since 2022) and has been appointed Notary since December 2024. Both Writ Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

12-WP-539-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.539 OF 2024

¶4

Priti Amit Rita …Petitioner Versus Amit Premji Rita & Anr. …Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3769 OF 2024 Amit Premji Rita …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶5

Dr. Samarth Shrikant Karmarkar a/w. Mr. Parag Mishra i/b. Karmarkar & Associates, for the Petitioner in WP/539/2024 and for the Respondent No.2 in WP/3769/2024.

¶6

Mr. Vaibhav Bagade a/w. Mr. Aman Kothari and Mr. Santosh Pawar and Mr. Gaurav Kalekar, for the Petitioner in WP/3769/2024 and for the Respondent No.1 in WP/539/2024.

¶7

Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 7^th APRIL 2025

¶9

PC:-

¶10

The challenge in these Writ Petitions filed under Article 227

¶11

of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 1^st March 2023

¶12

passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44^th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in Interim Application filed under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Page 1

Sonali

12-WP-539-2024.DOC

(“ D.V. Act ”) filed in C.C. No.138/DV/2019 as well as to the order dated 21^st December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2023. By the impugned order dated 1^st March 2023, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month to the Respondent-Wife and the child. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has reduced the said amount of maintenance from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month. The order granting maintenance is challenged by the Husband-Amit Premji Rita by filing Writ Petition No.3769 of 2024 and the Wife-Priti Amit Rita has challenged the order of reduction of maintenance by filing Writ Petition No.539 of 2024.

¶17

It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Husband that the Respondent-Wife is practicing Advocate. However, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Wife states that although the Respondent-Wife has passed her Bachelor of Laws (LLB) examination in the year 2009, however, for a period of 2009 to 2022 she was not practicing and thereafter, in the year 2022 she started practicing as an Advocate.

Page 2

Sonali

12-WP-539-2024.DOC

It is also an admitted position that since December 2024, the Respondent-Wife has also been appointed as Notary.

¶22

It is the submission of the Respondent-Wife that the Petitioner-Husband is earning huge income and as soon as the D.V. proceedings are filed, very limited income is shown in the Income Tax Return. It is submitted that the Petitioner-Husband is having relationship outside marriage and not even ready to pay maintenance to the daughter. It is also submitted that the Petitioner-Husband has falsely represented to the learned Trial Court that the stay has been granted when this Court has never granted stay. Learned Counsel submits that the arrears of maintenance are about Rs.26,95,000/-.

¶23

Perusal of the record shows that the marriage between the Petitioner-Husband and the Respondent-Wife was solemnized on 18^th February 2006. The date of birth of child is 9^th May 2012. It is an admitted position that the child is being maintained by wife. It is also an admitted position that the parties are staying separately since 24^th May 2018 and the Respondent No.2-mother is singlehandedly looking after the child. It is the allegation in the D.V.

Page 3

Sonali

12-WP-539-2024.DOC

proceedings that the Petitioner-Husband is having live-inrelationship with some other lady since the year 2019.

¶28

Perusal of the record further shows that income tax returns filed by the Petitioner-Husband in the year 2018 in the balancesheet shows income of Rs.1,09,46,770/-. As already noted, the dispute started in the year 2018-2019. As far as the income tax returns of the year 2019-2020 is concerned, the gross total income is shown as Rs.7,46,435/-.

¶29

In any case this is a case where an amount of Rs.26,95,000/is outstanding even as per the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which maintenance of Rs.60,000/has been reduced to Rs.45,000/-. Thus, the Petitioner-Husband is not ready to pay maintenance to the child.

¶30

Apart from that, it is required to be noted that at no point of time this Court has granted any ad-interim relief to the PetitionerHusband. However, the Application has been filed in said D.V. proceedings on 21^st March 2025 specifically stating that the High Court has granted ad-interim relief. In fact, this Court’s order dated

Page 4

Sonali

12-WP-539-2024.DOC

19^th March 2025 specifically states that “ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any granted earlier will continue to operate till next date”. It is an admitted position that there is no any ad-interim or interim relief granted to the Petitioner-Amit Premji Rita earlier. Thus, it is very clear that totally false statement has been made before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Mr. Vaibhav Bugade, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Husband states that the said statement is inadvertently made. He tenders unconditional apology.

¶35

Thus, no interference in the impugned orders is warranted at the instance of the Petitioner-Husband in the equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

As far as the challenge raised by the Wife to the reduction of maintenance from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month by the learned Appellate Court, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly as Respondent-Wife is now practicing as an Advocate and also she has been appointed as notary, no interference in the impugned order dated 21^st December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division,

Page 5

Sonali

12-WP-539-2024.DOC

Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2023 reducing maintenance from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.45,000/- is warranted under the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however,

¶42

with no order as to costs.

¶43

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶44

Page 6

¶45

Sonali

Priti Amit Rita v. Amit Premji Rita and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Amit Rita v. Amit Premji Rita and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amal Dilip Desai vs Nilesh Dilip Desai and Anr.

Puneet Singh Saini vs Preet Puneet Singh Saini and Anr.

Pandurang Dattu Bhosale vs Janabai Bhagwan Bhosale

Asif Badshaha Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Narsingh Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Mr Sumedh More Ors. vs State of Maharashtra