Petitioner challenged the stay of maintenance order granted by Sessions Court without reasons. Court directed disposal of pending appeals within one month and disposed of the writ petition.
Directed Addl. Sessions Judge to decide pending criminal appeals within one month; writ petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
6-WP-3468-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3468 OF 2019
NANDA @ NANDABAI BABAN BAGVE)...PETITIONER
V/s.
BABAN PANDURANG BAGVE AND ORS.)...RESPONDENTS
Mr.D.D.Ranaware, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE: 7th OCTOBER 2019
PC :
1By this petition, the petitioner/aggrieved person is
challenging the order dated 18th April 2019 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, thereby staying the order dated
16th November 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Karad, awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month
to her apart from costs of proceeding quantified at Rs.1,000/-.
avk 1/3
6-WP-3468-2019.doc
2The order awarding maintenance to the petitioner
under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act came to
be challenged by respondent nos.1 and 2 before the Sessions
court, Karad. Similarly, the petitioner/aggrieved person also
preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Karad, being dissatisfied by the order allowing her application
partly.
3It is seen that the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
on 18th April 2019, after hearing both the parties, was pleased to
stay the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Karad, granting maintenance to the petitioner till disposal
of the appeal.
4Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
He argued that the order of maintenance cannot be stayed by the
learned Appellate court and that too, without assigning any
reasons for the same. Prima facie, the contention so advanced,
seems to be correct because the learned Appellate court has not
avk 2/3
6-WP-3468-2019.doc
assigned any reasons for staying the order of maintenance except
referring to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.1 and 2.
5Be that as it may, as the petition is challenging the
appellate order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and as the appeal filed by both the parties are still pending,
interest of justice would be served, if the appeals are directed to
be decided in a time bound manner. Therefore, the order :
ORDER
i)The writ petition is disposed off with direction to the learned
Addl.Sessions Judge to decide the Criminal Appeals bearing
Nos.32 of 2018 and 9 of 2019 filed by the parties and
pending on his file, within the period of one months from
the date of communication of this order.
ii) The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off.avk 3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the stay of maintenance order by the appellate court without assigning reasons was sustainable.
Whether the impugned order staying the maintenance award until disposal of appeal should be addressed.
Whether time-bound disposal of pending criminal appeals is required to serve the interest of justice.
Nanda @ Nandabai Baban Bagve
Baban Pandurang Bagve
A. M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court