Anand S/O Jagdish Joshi vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1762 Bom

                                    1                                      wp572.15




                                                                       
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                               
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.572 OF 2015




                                              
     Anand s/o Jagdish Joshi, 
     Aged about 39 years, 
     Occupation - Labourer,




                                       
     R/o Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist. 
     Chandrapur.              ig                        ....       PETITIONER


                  VERSUS
                            
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
         through Govt. Pleader, High Court, 
      

         Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 
   



     2) Sau. Swati w/o Anand Joshi,
         Aged 31 years, 
         Occupation - Tailoring.





     3) Om s/o Anand Joshi,
         Aged 11 years, 
         through minor guardian mother
         Swati Anand Joshi, 





         Both R/o Shiv Chowk, Washim, 
         Tq. and Dist. Washim.                          ....   RESPONDENT
                                                                        S


     ______________________________________________________________
                 Shri Mohd. Shakir, Advocate for the petitioner, 
               Shri N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the respondent No.1,
           Shri A.M. Kukday, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
      ______________________________________________________________




    ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:20:30 :::
                                              2                                            wp572.15




                                                                                      
                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 22 nd APRIL, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Shakir, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri

N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and

Shri A.M. Kukday, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by

the Sessions Court imposing conditions while allowing the application

filed by the petitioner praying for stay to the effect, operation and

execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the

petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner is suspended and therefore, is not in a position to pay

the amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate. It is

further submitted that the petitioner is having the responsibility of

maintaining his old parents and this factor is not taken into

consideration either by the learned Magistrate or the learned

3 wp572.15

Additional Sessions Judge.

5. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has

pointed out that in the judgment given in Criminal Revision

No.80/2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded that

father of the petitioner had filed pursis stating that he was residing

separately from his son i.e. the petitioner. Further the petitioner has

not placed any material on record to show that he is suspended.

6. In the above facts, the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner cannot be accepted.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the

relevant aspects and has worked out the equities, protecting the

interests of both the parties. I see no reason to interfere with the

interlocutory order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear

their own costs.

JUDGE

pma