The High Court dismissed the revision application for want of prosecution. The Applicant-Husband failed to appear on multiple dates and had not cleared the arrears of maintenance directed by the Family Court, despite previous undertakings and court orders.
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.
1-REVN-211-2016.DOC
Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2024.01.03 18:11:57 +0530
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2016
Jayant Sudhakar Kulkarni …Applicant Versus Madhavi Jayant Kulkarni and Anr. …Respondents
None for the Applicant. Mr Milind R Deshpande , for the Respondent No.1. Mr Jayesh Yagnik , APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM: Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 3rd January 2024
PC:-
1. The Applicant-Husband has assailed the judgment and order dated 16th February 2016 passed by the Family Court of Solapur. By the said order, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Respondent No.1-Wife. The order impugned herein is passed in the petition filed by the Respondent No.1-Wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Order dated 16th June 2017 of this Court records submissions of both the counsels that they were exploring possibility of settlement out of Court. None of the parties have reported any progress in respect of the settlement.
Page 1 of 2
3rd January 2024
1-REVN-211-2016.DOC
3. By order dated 20th June 2016, the Applicant-Husband had undertaken to clear the entire arrears of maintenance before the next date. Mr. Milind Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Wife states that though the Applicant-Husband has deposited some amount, there are still substantial arrears of maintenance yet to be deposited by the Applicant-Husband.
4. By order dated 19th July 2017, this Court had directed the office to place the matter on board on 16th August 2017 for ‘Dismissal’. However, it is seen that both the parties through their counsels appeared before the Court on 30th October 2017 and a statement was made by the counsel of the Applicant-Husband, on instructions, that arrears of maintenance would be cleared on or before 6th November 2017. Till date, there is no information furnished by the Applicant-Husband to the Registry regarding deposit of arrears of maintenance. On the past two dates, none have appeared for the Applicant-Husband. Even today, none appear for the Applicant-Husband.
5. In view of the foregoing, the revision application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
Page 2 of 2 3rd January 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the Applicant's failure to prosecute and comply with previous orders?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayant Sudhakar Kulkarni
Madhavi Jayant Kulkarni
State
Dr. Neela Gokhale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
