Bombay High Court
Prashant S/O Bindaprasad Dixit vs Shalini W/O Prashant Dixit And ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: G. A. Sanap
1 apl396.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.396 OF 2018
Prashant s/o Bindraprasad Dixit
Aged about 43 years, R/o P.H. Nagar, Ramala
Dam Old Power House, Udday Road,
Chandrapur.
...APPLICANT
---VERSUS---
1. Shalini w/o Prashant Dixit
Aged about 33 years
2. Ku. Kanad D/o Prashant Dixit
Minor through natural guardian Non-applicant
no.1
Both R/o C/o Dr. Lohiya, R/o Seloo, Taluka ...NON-APPLICANTS
Seloo, District Wardha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Dheeraj Kanwale, Advocate for applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J.
DATE : JANUARY 06, 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant. Non-
applicants though served are absent.
2. In this revision, the challenge is to the order dated
09.04.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.13 of
2017 below Exhibit-18 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Seloo, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject
the application made by the applicant for cancellation of distress
2 apl396.18.odt
warrant for recovery of maintenance in the divorce proceedings. It
appears that as per the order dated 16.01.2018 passed in P.W.D.V.
Appeal no.29 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Wardha, the applicant was directed to pay ₹2,00,000/- to the non-
applicant/wife including the payment made earlier and he was
further directed to continue to deposit 50% of the amount awarded
by the trial Court towards maintenance till the decision of the
appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that in the
distress warrant additional amount has been claimed. The amount
of ₹2,00,000/- would include the amount of maintenance, which
was already paid.
4. Perusal of the order would show that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.01.2018 has not clarified the
actual amount due and payable on the date of the order of
16.01.2018. It appears that therefore the learned Magistrate has
calculated the amount mentioned in distress warrant. In view of this,
the order passed below the application Exhibit-18 needs to be set
aside. The order is accordingly set aside.
5. The application for cancellation for distress warrant be
restored to the file and heard and decided the same finally.
6. It is necessary to state that since the order dated
3 apl396.18.odt
16.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not
clear and specific with regard to the quantum of the actual amount,
the applicant would be liable to pay, liberty is granted to the
applicant to apply before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Wardha in P.W.D.V. Appeal no.29 of 2017 for seeking clarification
of this part of the order. If the applicant applies for clarification of
the order and for issuance of specific directions, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the said application
within ten days by granting an opportunity of hearing to the non-
applicant/wife. After specific clarification of this order, the wife
would be entitled to apply for distress warrant afresh by stating the
actual amount.
7. Learned advocate submits that applicant has deposited
50% of the amount of the maintenance in terms of the order dated
16.01.2018.
8. His statement is accepted. However, liberty is granted to
the wife to place on record the actual statement of arrears paid/not
paid, as per the order dated 16.01.2018.
The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Wagh
