Devidas Govindrao Solanke vs Asha Devidas Solanke And Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 5805 Bom

Judgment

                                                                    apl784.16 9

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

        CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.784 OF 2016

Devidas Govindrao Solanke, Aged about 52,
Occupation Service, Residing at Post Vyala,
Taluka Balapur, District Akola.                          ..... Appellant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

1.  Asha Devidas Solanke,
Aged about 44, Occupation Household,
Residing at Post Vyala, Taluka Balapur,
District Akola.

2.  Vicky Devidas Solanke,
Aged 16 years, Occupation Education, being
minor through his natural guardian Respondent 
No.1.

Both respondent Nos.1 and 2 are residing at
C/o Mohan Jaggannath Raut, Near Government
Godown, Mothi Umari, Akola.                        ..... Non-applicants.

================================================================
           Shri R.D. Dhande, Counsel for the applicant.
           Shri A.K. Neware, Counsel for the non-applicants.
================================================================


                                CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE    : AUGUST 9, 2017.



                                                                         .....2/-



 Judgment

                                                                    apl784.16 9



ORAL JUDGMENT

1.           Rule.     Rule   is   made   returnable   forthwith.     Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. An application under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed on behalf of present non-

applicant Nos.1 and 2 before learned Magistrate. The said

proceedings were registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.685 of

2014. Learned Magistrate on 30.3.2016 partly allowed the said

case filed on behalf of the present non-applicants for grant of

maintenance and directed that the present applicant should

pay amount of Rs.2000/- per month to present non-applicant

No.1 and Rs.1000/- per month to present non-applicant No.2.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, a

Criminal Revision No.65 of 2016 is filed by the present

applicant before the Revisional Court. In the said revision, an

application for stay was filed, which is at Exhibit 5. Learned

.....3/-

Judgment

apl784.16 9

Sessions Judge at Akola, vide order dated 19.9.2016, rejected

the said application for stay. Hence, this proceeding.

4. I have heard learned counsel Shri R.D. Dhande for

the applicant. He submits that an order, which was already

passed in between the parties on earlier occasion, is not

placed on record of Revisional Court. He further submits that

other evidence is not at all considered by the Revisional

Court.

5. Present proceedings arise out of an interim order.

This Court on 18.11.2016 has granted ad interim stay in favour

of the present applicant. In the interests of justice, it will be

expedient to direct learned Sessions Judge at Akola to dispose

of Criminal Revision No.65 of 2016 in accordance with law

within a period of three months. The parties are directed to

appear before the Revisional Court on 31.8.2017. From

31.8.2017, the Revisional Court should decide the revision

.....4/-

Judgment

apl784.16 9

within a period of three months positively. Further, the

present applicant/husband shall not try to protract or linger

the revision. Since the Stay is granted in favour of the

present applicant by this Court and it is in operation since

18.11.2016, the said Stay order shall remain in operation for

next three months from 31.8.2017.

With this, the criminal application is partly

allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-