Allowed¶17

Mr Nitesh S O Vinod Ganvir v. Smt Vaishali W O Nitesh Ganvir

Bombay HC8 Sept 2025APPR/127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 352 days delay; Criminal Application (APPR) No. 127 of 2025; Criminal Revision Application No. 76 of 2025; Family Court judgment and order dated 07/02/2024 passed on consent/settlement terms; applicant unaware of passing of judgment; costs Rs.2,000/- to non-applicants; non-applicants absent despite notice; revision to be registered, notice returnable after four weeks; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.; decided 06/08/2025; applicant Mr. Nitesh s/o Vinod Ganvir; counsel Ms. Poonam P. Moon.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 352 days in preferring the revision application, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the non-applicants; revision application to be registered and notice issued to the non-applicants, returnable after four weeks. ¶17

Mr Nitesh S O Vinod Ganvir vs Smt Vaishali W O Nitesh Ganvir — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

921appr76.2025.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 127 OF 2025 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2025

¶6

Mr. Nitesh s/o Vinod Ganvir Vs Smt. Vaishali w/o Nitesh Ganvir and another

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Ms. Poonam P. Moon, counsel for applicant.

¶9

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 06 /08/2025.

¶10

By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay, which is caused in preferring the revision application.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that during the proceedings pending before the Family Court, the parties arrived at a settlement, and the impugned order and judgment were passed on 07/02/2024, based on the settlement terms. The said impugned order was based on consent terms, and the applicant was under the impression that the petition was still pending until compliance with the said consent terms, which were to be complied with by him. Therefore, he did not attend the proceedings, and the impugned judgment and order were passed. As he was unaware of the passing of the judgment, he could not approach the court to challenge the said order.

rkn

921appr76.2025.odt

In view of that, there is just and reasonable cause to condone the delay. The application deserves to be allowed.

¶16

Despite the notice served upon the nonapplicants, none appears for the non-applicants.

¶17

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, which appears to be just and reasonable one. The delay of 352 days is condoned, subject to the costs of Rs.2,000/-. The costs be paid to the nonapplicants.

¶18

Revision application be registered. On registration of the revision, notice be issued to the nonapplicants, returnable after four weeks.

¶19

[ URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

¶20

rkn

Mr Nitesh S O Vinod Ganvir v. Smt Vaishali W O Nitesh Ganvir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nitesh S O Vinod Ganvir v. Smt Vaishali W O Nitesh Ganvir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pranay Parasramji Thakre vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Khapa Police Station, Nagpur

Dashrath Namdeo Akhare vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps at Dongaon, Taluka Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana

Shaikh Sohail Shaikh Mukhtar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Nandura Tq Nandura Dist Buldhana

Kausalya Shailendra Soni and 2 Others Vs Amrata Aman Soni and Another

Akshay Chanduji Thool Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Hinghanghat Dist Wardha

Santosh S/O Bhagwan Kendre vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Aasegaon Dist Washim and Anr.