Bombay High Court
Takhbal W/O. Hakim @ Fajal Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
CR.WP/561/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 561 OF 2016
Takhbal Hakim @ Fajal Shaikh,
Age 25 years, Occ. Household
R/o Kambalga, Tq. Shirur Anantpal,
Dist. Latur at present Omerdara,
Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Hakim @ Fajal Osman Shaikh,
Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o Kambalga, Tq. Shirur Anantpal,
District Latur. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Adgaonkar Ravibhushan P.
APP for Respondent 1 : Shri Bhagat N.T.
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri Patil Milind
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: June 28, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition
is taken up for final disposal.
CR.WP/561/2016
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2016,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, by which,
the Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2015 filed by respondent
No.2 has been allowed.
5. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at
length.
6.
It appears from the complaint of respondent No.2, lodged with
the Police Station at Shirur Anantpal that he had apprehended the
petitioner / wife read-handed in the company of a stranger. From
the confession recorded by the petitioner / wife on 23.5.2015 before
the concerned Police Station and in the presence of the
representative of the Women's Vigilance Cell , it appears that she
had invited the said person and was in his company, when the
husband saw both of them.
7. Considering the disclosures in the statements of both the
parties, which cannot be discussed in this order, it appears that there
is no hope of re-conciliation. Learned Advocate for the second
respondent submits with what has happened in the past and with
what he had seen with his own eyes, there is no way that he would
accept the petitioner for residing together in his marital home.
CR.WP/561/2016
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates in
the light of the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned
Magistrate, directing the respondent to hand-over the custody of the
elder child Junaid to the petitioner and the impugned judgment of
the revisional Court dated 5.4.2016, by which the custody of both the
children i.e. Junaid and Muaj be handed over respondent No.2.
9. This Court by its order dated 22.4.2016 has directed status quo
to be maintained.
10. It is informed by the learned Advocates that the proceedings
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are
pending and the parties can seek mediation.
11. In the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the view that ends of
justice would be met by disposing off this petition with continuance
of the order dated 22.4.2016 till the decision in the pending
proceedings and by allowing the litigating sides to apply before the
learned Magistrate in the pending proceedings for a settlement by
mediation.
12. In the light of the above, this petition is disposed off by
continuing the order of this Court dated 22.4.2016 till the decision in
M. A. No. 4 of 2016 by the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate F.C.
CR.WP/561/2016
Nilanga or till the settlement between the parties, whichever is
earlier. Both the parties are, therefore, at liberty to apply to the
learned Court for referring the matter to mediation so as to explore
the possibilities of a settlement as well as to settle the issue with
regard to the custody of the children.
13. Rule is, therefore, discharged.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
