Partly allowed

Ravindra S/O. Soma Tayde v. Mangala Ravindra Tarte (as Shown in Title Clause of Judgement) Mangala W/O. Kailas Sonawane

Bombay HC16 Nov 2021WP/244/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition challenging a revision order that proceeded against a recalled maintenance award. The Court set aside the impugned revision order, granted the petitioner time to comply with pending conditions, and directed the lower court to dispose of related miscellaneous applications promptly.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned revision order; grant petitioner one month to deposit 50% of outstanding amount; direct lower court to conclude pending matter within six months.

Ravindra S/O. Soma Tayde Vs Mangala Ravindra Tarte… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

( 1 ) crwp244.20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

923 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.244 OF 2020

¶4

RAVINDRA S/O. SOMA TAYDE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

MANGALA RAVINDRA TARTE (AS SHOWN IN TITLE CLAUSE OF
JUDGEMENT) MANGALA W/O. KAILAS SONAWANE

¶7

Mr.B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Shaikh Afreen Fatima, Advocate for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J.
DATED :16.11.2021

¶9

PC :-

¶10

01.This petition challenges judgment and order

¶11

dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhusawal in Criminal Revision Application No.108/2017.

¶12

02.The respondent herein filed an application under
section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The application
filed by the respondent for maintenance was initially
allowed by order dated 27.03.2012. Against said order,

¶13

revision was carried before the Sessions Court. In the
revision, said order dated 27.03.2012 was set aside and
the matter was remanded back to the Court of learned

¶14

JMFC. After remand the application was allowed by order
dated 14.09.2016. Application thereafter was filed by
the present petitioner before the learned Magistrate for
recalling the said order dated 14.09.2016 as according to
the petitioner, it was passed ex-parte. Against the very
same order, revision petition was filed by the respondent
challenging the order to the extent of grant of
maintenance from the date of order instead of from the
date of application. The application filed by the
petitioner for recalling/setting aside order dated
14.09.2016 came to be allowed by order dated 26.03.2019
and the following order was passed :-

¶15

“ORDER

¶16

1]The application is allowed subject to
following conditions.
A]The application is allowed subject to cost
of Rs.15,000/-.

¶17

B]The cost to be paid to the applicant within
a period of Seven days.

¶18

C]The applicant to pay 50% of outstanding
amount due against him in respect of which the
execution bearing No.413/2016 is filed to be paid
within 15 days.

¶19

D]The applicant to approach the Court in
which the matter would be numbered on 12/04/2019
without any notice being served to him.

¶20

E]Parties to make efforts to dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

F]Failure of the above mentioned condition
A,B,C,D this order shall automatically stand
vacated.”

¶22

03.As the revision petition filed by the respondent
against the order dated 14.09.2016 was pending before the
Sessions Court, a pursis was filed and it was mentioned
therein that the order dated 14.09.2016 itself is
recalled and therefore the revision petition, does not
survive and it has become infructuous. In-spite of it,
learned Sessions Court allowed the revision petition
filed by the respondent by the order impugned.

¶23

04.I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶24

and learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the revision
petition was filed against order dated 14.09.2016. It is
submitted that as the said order dated 14.09.2016 was
recalled by order dated 26.03.2019 and therefore, the
Sessions Court ought not to have entertained the revision
petition. It is further submitted that the learned
Magistrate was not justified in directing the petitioner
to pay 50% of outstanding amount due against him by order
dated 26.03.2019, in absence of any order of maintenance

¶25

in favour of the respondent.

¶26

05.Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the
revision petition was filed against order dated
14.09.2016. Admittedly, said order dated 14.09.2016 came
to be recalled/set aside pursuant to the application
filed by the petitioner. The revisional Court, however,
while allowing the revision petition has observed “The
non-applicant has not clarified as regards compliance of
the order. The non-applicant has also failed to clarify

¶27

whether the matter is actually restored or not.
Therefore, incomplete information submitted by the non-
applicant cannot be considered to treat the revision as
infructuous.” The learned revisional Court before
entertaining the revision ought to have sought the
information from the Court of learned Magistrate with
regard to compliance of order dated 26.03.2019.

¶28

06.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has already deposited costs of

¶29

Rs.15,000/- as per order dated 26.03.2019. He further
submits that the petitioner has not deposited 50% of
amount as per clause (C) of operative order dated
26.03.2019 as same is questioned in the present petition.
As I declined to entertain the present petition against

¶30

clause (C) of operative order dated 26.03.2019, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner will deposit 50% of amount as per clause (C)

¶31

of order dated 26.03.2019 in pending Criminal M.A.No.296

¶32

of 2009. In the result, following order is passed :-

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

i)The petition is partly allowed.
ii)The order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Criminal
Revision Application No.108/2017 is set aside.

¶35

iii)The petitioner is granted one month’s time
to deposit the amount as per clause (C) of order
dated 26.03.2019.

¶36

iv)The learned Magistrate shall endeavour to
decide Criminal M.A. No.296 of 2009 as early as
possible and in any case within six months from
the receipt of copy of this order.

¶37

snk/2021/NOV21/crwp244.20

Ravindra S/O. Soma Tayde v. Mangala Ravindra Tarte (as Shown in Title Clause of Judgement) Mangala W/O. Kailas Sonawane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O. Soma Tayde v. Mangala Ravindra Tarte (as Shown in Title Clause of Judgement) Mangala W/O. Kailas Sonawane

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

Shri Vithalrao Nagorao @ Kerba Nawakilkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri Gangadhar Vithalrao Nawakilkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Geetaram Ramds Mate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdeo Chintaman Badgujar Vs Vaishali Ramdeo Badgujar and Others

Shaikh Iqbal S/O Shaikh Gani Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nilesh S/O. Ashok Deshmukh and Others Vs Milan W/O. Nilesh Deshmukh