Supriya W/O. Narayan ... vs Narayan S/O. Bhaskarrao ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4816 Bom

                               1            934-Cri.Rev.Appln.246-19+1.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          934 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2019
                        WITH REVN/110/2023

                SUPRIYA W/O. NARAYAN GANGAMASLEKAR
                               VERSUS
              NARAYAN S/O. BHASKARRAO GANGAMASLEKAR

                                  ...
            Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kurundkar Sunil V.
       Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Joshi Milind Madhu, Mr. Baig
                         Mirza Mazhar Javed.
                                  ...

                               CORAM :   S. G. MEHARE, J.

                               DATE :    04.05.2023

     PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

learned counsel for respondent.

2. The conditional stay was granted to the execution of

impugned order, to test the bonafide of the applicant. Out of

Rs.1,00,000/-, he had deposited Rs.20,000/- and sent the

cheque of Rs.80,000/- to the counsel appearing in the

execution proceeding. However, the counsel appearing in

execution proceeding went to attend the funeral of his aunt,

and therefore, the cheque could not be deposited on the given

date.

2 934-Cri.Rev.Appln.246-19+1.odt

3. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to deposit

the cheque by 06.05.2023. Time granted as prayed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that

the applicant is in a huge arrears of maintenance more than

Rs.4,12,000/-. He strongly opposing the application submits

that the wife is running from pillar to post for maintenance

since 2016. He is most irregular in paying the maintenance.

The applicant has a good income and the quantum decided by

the learned trial court is too less. Respondent/wife has no

source of income. Therefore, he does not deserve stay.

5. The Court expressed the view that the conditional stay

may be granted to the applicant clearing the entire arrears of

maintenance till today in two installments and continue to pay

Rs.5,000/- per month till conclusion of the revision

application. However, learned counsel for the applicant was

seeking time to take instructions. This is not the matter to take

instructions at the eleventh hour. Before entering the Court,

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is supposed to

have a complete instructions. It seems that the applicant is not

bonafide. He is not willing to pay the maintenance though he

has a sufficient source of income. The impugned petition was

filed in the year 2016. Apparently, the applicant is in a huge

3 934-Cri.Rev.Appln.246-19+1.odt

arrears of maintenance. Considering his conduct, he deserves

no stay to the impugned judgment and order. Hence, his

request to stay the execution and implementation of the

impugned judgment and order stands dismissed.

6. Stand over to 14.07.2023.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

...

vmk/-