Sau. Smita W/O. Roshan Gajbhiye ... vs Roshan S/O. Mukundaji Gajbhiye ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8292 Bom

WP  643/17                                         1                          Judgment

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

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 643/2017

1.    Sau.Smita W/o Roshan Gajbhiye,
      Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household.
2.    Raunak Roshan Gajbhiye,
      Aged about 3½ years, Occ. Student,
      Being minor through natural guardian
      mother petitioner no.1.
Both R/o C/o Lalchand Patil, Wathoda Road,
Kuhi, Tahsil Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.                                             PETITIONERS
                                    .....VERSUS.....
1.    Roshan S/o Mukundaji Gajbhiye,
      Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service.
2.    Dhammakirti Mukundaji Gajbhiye,
      Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service.
3.    Sau.Vanita Dhamakirti Gajbhiye,
      Aged about 33 years, Occ. Household.

All R/o Quarter No.8, Ordinance Factory,
Ambazari, Nagpur.                                                          RESPONDE
                                                                                    NTS

                    Shri H.N. Bhongade, counsel for the petitioners.
               Mrs.Sonali Saware-Gadhawe, counsel for the respondents.

                                        CORAM : REVATI MOHITE-DERE, J.

DATE : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioners have impugned

the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Nagpur dated

19.04.2017 below Exhibit 5 in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2017.

WP 643/17 2 Judgment

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was

absolutely no justification for the Appellate Court to reduce the

maintenance awarded by the trial Court, i.e. to reduce the maintenance

from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned order, more

particularly when the Appellate Court has posted the appeal for final

arguments today. She further submits that the Appellate Court be

directed to expeditiously dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners

alongwith the application for condonation of delay and the appeal filed

by the respondents.

5. Perused the order dated 19.04.2017. Prima-facie, it

appears that the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons while

passing the impugned order dated 19.04.2017, for reducing the

maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court from Rs.7,000/- to

Rs.3,000/-. However, since the appeal filed by the respondent as well as

the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay is kept

today for hearing, it is not necessary to consider the said petition on

merits.

WP 643/17 3 Judgment

6. Accordingly, the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur is

requested to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondents and the appeal

alongwith the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners

as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within three weeks from

today, on its own merits. The parties to cooperate in the disposal of the

aforesaid appeals by not seeking unnecessary adjournments.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid

terms. The observation made is prima-facie and the learned Judge shall

decide the appeals on its own merits, uninfluenced by the same. All

contentions of both the parties are kept open.

8. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

JUDGE

APTE