Shivrajsingh Samundersingh Rathore v. Babita Shivrajsingh Rathore

21-REVN-123-2025.doc Arjun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.6762 OF 2025 Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date:

2025.08.21 19:38:07 +0530 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2025 Shivrajsingh Samundersingh Rathore ...Applicant (As per trial court records:

Shivrajsingh Samundersingh Rathod)

Versus

Babita Shivrajsingh Rathore

...Respondent

(As per trial court records:

Babita Shivrajsingh Rathod) _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Ganesh J. Sharma, for the Applicant.

Mr. Sanjay Singh, for Respondent No.1.

Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 21 AUGUST 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Ganesh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

2.

By the present Criminal Revision Application, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 7th July 2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai below

21-REVN-123-2025.doc Interim Application (Exhibit-2) in CC No.373/DV/2021. The said Application was filed seeking interim maintenance and an order restraining the Applicant from alienating Respondent No.1 from the shared household.

3.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the payment of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent No.1 as maintenance and also passed a temporary order restraining the Applicant from alienating Respondent No.1 from the shared household. The learned Trial Court has inter alia relied on the contention of Respondent No.1 that income tax returns for the year 2020-2021, showing a net income of Rs.5,00,000/- has been filed filed by the Applicant-husband. 4.

In the facts and circumstances, no interference in the impugned Order is warranted.

5.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

6.

In view of dismissal of the Criminal Revision Application, nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]