Mukesh Manikrao Khude vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9557 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2021
                                   AND
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1513 OF 2021
                                    IN
                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2021


Mukesh s/o Manikrao Khude,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o House No.8, Satara Parisar,
Behind Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital,                            PETITIONER/
Aurangabad                                                   APPLICANT

       VERSUS

1.     The State of Maharashtra

2.     Shobha @ Priti w/o Mukesh Khude
       Age : 30 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o Satara Parisar, Aurangabad

3.     Yash s/o Mukesh Khude,
       Age : 10 years, Occu. Student,
       R/o as above                                          RESPONDENTS

                                      ----
Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant
Smt. R.P. Gaur, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
                                      ----

                                    CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 20.07.2021

PER COURT :

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner/applicant.

2 CRIWP329-2021+

2. Mr. D.S. Manorkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner points out

that the earlier proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 was dismissed inter

alia on her failure to establish that she was his wife. The decision was

confirmed by the Appellate Court and when she approached this Court

against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, the Writ

Petition was withdrawn to her extent and the parties were asked to undergo

a DNA test to ascertain paternity of respondent No.3. He submits that

subsequently, the DNA test has established that the petitioner is biological

father of respondent No.3. Therefore, he is liable to maintain respondent

No.3. However, he is not under any legal obligation to pay any maintenance

to respondent No.2. Still, hiding all these subsequent events, she has

obtained maintenance by the impugned order and the petitioner has been

sent to civil prison in execution thereof.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that as far as

respondent No.3 is concerned, the petitioner is in arrears of maintenance

amount to the tune of around Rs.48,000/-, which he is ready to deposit

immediately and he may be set at large.

4. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner be set at large on his depositing an

amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with the Family Court,

Aurangabad, without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

3 CRIWP329-2021+

5. Issue notice, returnable on 17.08.2021. The learned A.P.P. waives

service of notice for respondent No.1/State.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

npj/CRIWP329-2021+