Bombay High Court
Bhagyashree W/O Vinayak Sonar And ... vs Vinayak S/O Balasaheb Sonar And ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1 Cri.WP.No.846.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 846 OF 2015
1. Bhagyashree W/o Vinayak Sonar
Age : 23 years, Occ : Household
R/o. Kala Hanuman Thana, Beed
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Ku. Vedika D/o Vinayak Sonar
Age : 2 years, Occ : Nil
Minor U/g. Petitioner No.1.
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Vinayak S/o Balasaheb Sonar
Age : 28 years, Occ. Service as Police
Constable Buckle No.1042
R/o.Flat No.1, Krishna Apartment,
Shelgi Colony, Vidyanagar, Solapur,
Tq. & Dist. Solapur.
2. Smt. Shantabai W/o Balasaheb Sonar
Age : 51 years, Occ. Household &
Pensioner.
R/o. Flat No.1, Krishna Apartment,
Shelgi Colony, Vidyanagar, Solapur,
Tq. & Dist, Solapur. Respondents
Mr .B. R. Sable, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. Kshitija Sarangi, Advocate h/f Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1&2.
....
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 13/06/2016
atu/June.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for
quite some time.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court has noted
that the impugned order dated 25.02.2014, delivered by the learned
Magistrate was, in fact, an ex-parte order considering the fact that no
Say/Written Statement was filed by the respondents. Considering
the same, the Revisional Court set aside the order of the Trial Court
and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for being considered
afresh and by permitting the respondents to file their say/written
statement. Arrears of maintenance for an amount of Rs.10,000/- was
directed to be paid to the petitioners and Rs.5,000/- per quarter (3
months ) was directed to be paid till the matter concludes before the
Trial Court.
atu/June.2016
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order of payment of
maintenance allowance dated 25.02.2014 would not have been
interfered with. In the alternative, it is submitted that the impugned
order be modified to the extent of directing the respondents to pay
Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioners and the Trial may be
expedited.
5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that the impugned order has already been implemented.
Say/written statement has been filed by the respondents. Rs.
10,000/- as arrears have been deposited and the respondents who
are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- in each quarter before the Trial
Court. It is further submitted that for the last 5 dates, the
petitioners who are required to lead evidence, have sought an
adjournment on the pretext that this petition is pending.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that say/written statement
was not filed by the respondents before the Trial Court. The
atu/June.2016
impugned order dated 25.02.2014, passed by the learned Magistrate,
is in the absence of say/written statement of the respondents.
7. I find that the Revisional Court has, in order to meet the ends
of justice, permitted the respondents to file their say/written
statement by adequately compensating the petitioners. Rs. 10,000/-
towards arrears of maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- for each quarter has
been granted till the decision in the trial.
8. In this backdrop, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order or accede to the request of the petitioners that
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- in each month be directed. Ends of
justice would be met by expediting the trial.
9. In the light of the above, this petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Trial Court to decide the Criminal Misc. Application
No.548 of 2013, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably on or
before 31.03.2017. Till then, the petitioners shall continue to pay the
amount as is directed by the Revisional Court vide its order dated
atu/June.2016
13.04.2015.
10. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
atu/June.2016
