Allowed

Smt Afsara Bano W/O Mohd Ashraf Kariya and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nagbhid and Another

Bombay HC3 Oct 2012APPR/75/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision application seeking condonation of delay of 624 days to challenge a Family Court order granting meagre maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court accepted the delay considering the applicants' grievance over the low amount and the husband's arrears, allowing the application to be disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 624 days is condoned and the application is allowed and disposed of.

Smt Afsara Bano W/O Mohd Ashraf Kariya and Another Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/2

¶2

03.10.appr.75.12

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 75/2012 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. ..../2012

¶6

(Ku. Afsara Bano w/o Mohd. Ashraf and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another )

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶8

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Shri A B Mirza, Adv. for applicants Shri J B Jaiswal, APP for respondent no.1-State Advocate for Respondent no.2 is absent

¶10

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 3^rd October, 2012.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application against the order of Family Court dated 6^th August, 2010 in Petition No. E-343/2007. The applicants were the original applicants before the Family Court in above said petition for grant of maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. The maintenance granted by the Family Court to the first applicant- wife is Rs. 2500/- per month and to the second applicant-son is Rs. 1500/- per month. It is submitted by Mr Mirza that the husband of applicant no.1 is in arrears of maintenance amount to the extent of more than Rs. 1 lakh and, that in the meantime, the applicant no.2 had suffered from hernia and high temperature. It is further submitted during the course of arguments that at present

¶13

2/2

¶14

03.10.appr.75.12

¶15

the applicant no.2 is suffering from an eye problem and applicant no.1 is taking care of applicant no.2.

¶16

In ordinary course, the reasons stated for delay of 624 days probably would not be accepted by the Court but considering the peculiar facts of this case and particularly considering the fact that the proceedings are u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and the applicants are seriously aggrieved by the grant of meagre amount of maintenance, I am of the view that the prayer shall be considered sympathetically. The learned counsel Mr Mirza has submitted that the non applicant-husband is running a Hardware shop at Nagbhid Dist.Chandrapur and that he can pay more than what is granted by the Family Court. It is further submitted that it will not be possible for the applicants to maintain themselves within amount of Rs. 4000/- per month. It was pointed out that though the applicants are not satisfied with the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court, the nonapplicant husband has not paid even that amount regularly. As stated earlier, he is in arrears of the maintenance amount.

¶17

For all these reasons, the delay is condoned Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

sahare

Smt Afsara Bano W/O Mohd Ashraf Kariya and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nagbhid and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Afsara Bano W/O Mohd Ashraf Kariya and Another v. State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nagbhid and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Agri. Dev. and Social Welfare Pro. Thr. Power of Attorney Ronalrao Padmanabhan Rao and One Vs Judicial Magistrate First Class and Others

Shrikant @ Balya S/O Laxman Uike Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Pratapnagar, Police Station Nagpur

The Agri. Dev. and Social Welfare Pro. Thr. Power of Attorney Ronalrao Padmanabhan Rao and One Vs Judicial Magistrate First Class and Others

Mukesh S/O Deodatta Gupta and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary and Others

Mukesh S/O Deodatta Gupta and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary and Others

Mukesh Deodatta Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Deptt of Home Affairs and 3 Others