JUDGMENT : P.B. Varale, J. 1. Heard. ADMIT. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the revision application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. The applicants are before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. dated 12.09.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2014 on an application (Exh. 5), filed by the present applicants for grant of stay to the effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class. Court No. 5, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1936/2010 filed by the present non-applicant seeking reliefs under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application, can be summarized as follows: The marriage between the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 03.11.1008. The applicant No. 1/husband is working as Manager in Maintenance Department of Manganese Ore India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "MOII" for short) a Central Government undertaking company, at Balaghat. The applicant No. 2 is the father-in-law and applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the non-applicant. The present non-applicant had submitted before the learned Magistrate that the applicant/husband was earning handsome salary @ Rs. 32,000/- per month and the applicant No. 2, who is retired person, was getting pension @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. It was the submission before the learned Magistrate that she was subjected to harassment, ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the present applicants. The allegation was also of receiving physical violence. The non-applicant has stated in the application before the Magistrate that when she was carrying pregnancy, she was subjected to violence and on medical suggestion, abortion was performed. It was further stated in the application that the applicant had lodged a complaint against the present applicants at Pachpaoli police station for commission of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The further allegation levelled in the application was of applicant/husband driving her out of matrimonial house by beating mercilessly. According to the non-applicant, out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a child. 3. The application filed by the non-applicant before learned Magistrate was contested by the present applicants. The further allegation levelled in the application was of applicant/husband driving her out of matrimonial house by beating mercilessly. According to the non-applicant, out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a child. 3. The application filed by the non-applicant before learned Magistrate was contested by the present applicants. The learned Magistrate had framed four points for consideration/determination namely (1) does the applicant proves that non-applicant have committed domestic violence as prayed? (2) whether applicant is entitled for protection order against non-applicants as prayed? (3) whether applicant is entitled for residence order from non-applicant No. 1 as prayed? and (4) whether applicant is entitled for compensation from non-applicant No. 1 as prayed? The findings to these points were in affirmative. Without giving much details, suffice it would be to say that on an appreciation of the material presented before the learned Magistrate and on the backdrop of rival contentions, the learned Magistrate by order dated 12.12.2013, allowed the application partly, thereby prohibiting the non-applicants from committing, aiding, abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence to applicant/wife and directing the non-applicant No. 1/husband to pay rent of amount of Rs. 5.000/- per month to the applicant/wife for her separate residence and also to pay medical expenses of Rs. 31.000/- to the applicant wife. 4. Being aggrieved by aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Magistrate an appeal came to be filed by the present applicants before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 17/2014, along with an application (Exh. 5) seeking stay to the effect and operation of the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, dated 12.12.2013. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 12.09.2014, allowed the application (Exh. 5) for stay, subject to making payment of Rs. 4000/- per month towards rent for separate residence to the respondent/non-applicant before this Court regularly. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered that on failure to make such payment the stay order shall automatically stand vacated. The present applicants, in challenge to the aforesaid order, have filed the present revision application. 5. In the present matter, this Court by order dated 13.10.2014, had issued notice to the non-applicant with certain observations. It will be useful to refer to the observations of this Court in the said order which reads thus: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The present applicants, in challenge to the aforesaid order, have filed the present revision application. 5. In the present matter, this Court by order dated 13.10.2014, had issued notice to the non-applicant with certain observations. It will be useful to refer to the observations of this Court in the said order which reads thus: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, amount of Rs. 5000/- is granted by the Family Court, Nagpur. which consists of Rs. 3000/- for respondent and Rs. 2000/- for child and in the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Domestic Violence Act, amount of Rs. 5000/- is awarded by the trial Court towards rent. which order was assailed by the applicants in revision and the learned revisional Court passed order granting stay to the order of the learned trial Court subject to applicants making payment of Rs. 4000/- per month towards rent. The learned counsel for the applicants could not satisfy the query of this Court by showing any document establishing proof of income of applicant No. 1, though has orally contended that the applicant No. 1 is earning Rs. 9000/- per month." Perusal of the record shows that the present applicants have filed an application APPR No. 217/2014 in the preset revision for production of documents, thereby annexing a copy of Salary Certificate of applicant No. 1, issued by MOIL. Perusal of said salary certificate shows that applicant No. 1 earns basic salary of Rs. 22,520/- per month and his net pay is Rs. 12,108/-. 6. Mr. Ghanvat learned counsel for the applicants vehemently attacked on the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. His first limb of submission was the learned Sessions Judge, while granting stay, ought not to have put any fetter on the applicants of direction of payment of Rs. 4000/- per month towards rent for separate residence to the non-applicant/wife. In his second limb, he made an attempt to submit that the direction of the learned Sessions Judge while granting stay quantifying the payment of Rs. 4000/- per month towards rent is an exorbitant amount and at the most it should have been @ Rs. 2000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of ill-treatment etc. are only to pressurize the applicants. 4000/- per month towards rent is an exorbitant amount and at the most it should have been @ Rs. 2000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of ill-treatment etc. are only to pressurize the applicants. He submits that in the criminal case bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 3073/2009 arising out of the complaint lodged by the non-applicant with Panchpaoli police station raising all those allegations of ill-treatment against the applicants, the learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 15.03.2014 has acquitted the applicants/accused from the said case. The other submission of learned counsel for the applicants was the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the applicant No. 1 has no dependents to maintain, except the non-applicant. Learned counsel for the applicants, by referring to the observation of the learned Magistrate in the order dated 12.12.2013, submits that the present non-applicant/wife herself has admitted before the learned Magistrate that applicant No. 1/husband has responsibility of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. He then submitted that the applicant No. 1 is providing financial assistance to the applicant No. 2 for medical treatment. He submits by referring to the document placed on record at Annexure-7 that applicant No. 2 needed medical treatment and accordingly he was treated at a private hospital. Thus, the submission is the learned Sessions Judge on erroneous observations passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2014. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant supports the order impugned in the present application. 8. It will be interesting to note that feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, wherein the learned Magistrate directed the applicant No. 1/husband to pay rent amount of Rs. 5.000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife for her separate residence, the applicant No. 1 along with other applicants filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge along with an application for grant of interim order in the nature of stay to the effect and operation of the order passed by the Magistrate. The said appeal is pending for its consideration. It is not disputed by the applicant No. 1 that he is not an employee occupying the post of Manager in MOIL. Though, it seems that an attempt was made before this Court to say that applicant No. 1 is not even earning Rs. The said appeal is pending for its consideration. It is not disputed by the applicant No. 1 that he is not an employee occupying the post of Manager in MOIL. Though, it seems that an attempt was made before this Court to say that applicant No. 1 is not even earning Rs. 9000/- as take home salary, the document at annexure-4 i.e. salary certificate itself shows that net pay of the applicant No. 1 is Rs. 12,108/-. The learned Magistrate has referred to the allegations, which were the subject matter of the first information report lodged at Panchpaoli police station. While the learned Magistrate was considering the application under Domestic Violence Act on the basis of material presented before him he arrived at a conclusion that the present non-applicant/wife has proved that the applicants have committed domestic violence to her. Then the learned Magistrate was concentrating on the relief of protection in the nature of entitlement of separate accommodation. It is not disputed that the applicant No. 2 in this revision is a retired person and was drawing pensionary benefit. The fact is also not disputed that the couple was blessed with a child. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 12.12.2013. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, while considering the prayer for grant of stay to the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, observed that applicant No. 1 is serving as Manager in MOIL at Balaghat. The learned Sessions Judge, on the backdrop of direction of the Family Court, directing the applicant No. 1 to pay maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife and Rs. 2000/- to child, observed that merely because a ground was raised by the applicants that applicant No. 1 is paying the maintenance regularly, it is no reason to say that the amount of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Family Court is sufficient enough for two persons i.e. one adult and one child, to make both ends meet. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge allowed the application for stay subject to payment of Rs. 4000/- per month to the non-applicant towards rent for her separate residence, regularly. Learned Sessions Judge, by clause (ii) of the order, made it clear that on failure to make said payment, the stay order shall automatically stand vacated. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge allowed the application for stay subject to payment of Rs. 4000/- per month to the non-applicant towards rent for her separate residence, regularly. Learned Sessions Judge, by clause (ii) of the order, made it clear that on failure to make said payment, the stay order shall automatically stand vacated. On a perusal of the reasons in the order dated 12.09.2014, in my opinion, allowing the prayer for grant of stay subject to payment of Rs. 4000/- to the non-applicant for rent, is just and proper and needs no indulgence. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the applicants to submit that applicant No. 1 provides financial assistance to the father i.e. non-applicant No. 2, who is ailing. Whether the father of applicant No. 1 is a retired person receiving pensionary benefits, is the issue already raised in the appeal pending before the learned Sessions Judge. To consider the submission of the learned counsel that applicant No. 1 is providing financial assistance to his ailing father, the documents placed on record shows that the said ailment was a cause for seeking medical treatment in the year 2011. The medical bills etc. i.e. post operative care also are of year 2011. Certain medical bills of 2014 are placed on record which pertains to some medicines, amounting to Rs. 900/- and Rs. 852/- for months November and December, 2014. Thus, this material cannot lead to a conclusion that presently, the applicant No. 1 is shelving out some large amount towards medical expenses of applicant No. 2. 10. The first limb of submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have put a fetter while passing the order on an application for grain of stay, is far fetched. If the learned Sessions Judge, on considering the material to balance equity thought it fit to allow the application with certain directions, no error is committed by the learned Sessions Judge. On considering the material namely the applicant, who is occupying the position of Manager in MOIL, and drawing basic salary @ Rs. 22,520/- per month and net salary of Rs. 12,108/-, the direction for payment of Rs. On considering the material namely the applicant, who is occupying the position of Manager in MOIL, and drawing basic salary @ Rs. 22,520/- per month and net salary of Rs. 12,108/-, the direction for payment of Rs. 4000/- towards rent of separate residence, cannot be said to be an exorbitant and excessive amount considering the submissions made by the applicant/wife before the learned Magistrate that in a locality like Jaripatka area, wherein the applicant requires accommodation and the area wherein the non-applicants reside, which is at a distance of 2 kms. the prevailing rates of rent are Rs. 8000 - to 9000 - per month and in addition electricity charges, water charges and corporation taxes are to be paid. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is an interim order in respect of rent for separate residence and the appeal is pending. The parties are at liberty to present the material in support of their submissions before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge for decision of the appeal. 11. Thus, considering all the above referred aspects, in my opinion, the present revision application holds no water. The application being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Needless to state that the observations made in this order are for considering this revision application, challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting stay on certain conditions and the learned Sessions Judge is at liberty to consider the appeal on its merits, not influenced by the observations of this Court in this order.