Sau. Vaishali W/O Shailendra Kamble v. Shri. Shailendra Kamaldas Kamble

Bombay HC2 Jul 2025APPR/26/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Criminal Application No.26 of 2025 in Criminal Revision Application (ST.) No.6861 of 2024; condonation of delay; 136 days; serious illness; certified copy; Family Court No.4 Nagpur; Petition No.E-174/2014; maintenance Rs.10,000 per month; Urmila Joshi-Phalke J.; decided 2 July 2025; application allowed; delay condoned; revision to be registered; notice to non-applicant.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 136 days condoned; criminal revision application to be registered; notice to the non-applicant (who waived notice and sought time to file reply); matter placed after four weeks. ¶¶18

Sau. Vaishali W/O Shailendra Kamble Vs Shri. Shailendra Kamaldas Kamble — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

918.appr.26.25.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2025 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.6861 OF 2024 (Sau. Vaishali w/o Shailendra Kamble Vs. Shri Shailendra Kamaldas Kamble)

¶6

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

¶7

Ms S.P. Chavhan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms P.N. Lakhani, Advocate for the non-applicant.

¶8

CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED :- JULY 2, 2025.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

By this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 136 days which is caused in preferring the criminal revision application.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is intending to challenge the order of the Family Court No.4, Nagpur in Petition No.E-174/2014 directing the respondent to give Rs.10,000/- per month as a maintenance.

¶12

The judgment was passed on 27/12/2023 and he applied for the grant of certified copy on 16/01/2024 and received on 23/01/2024 but subsequent to that as he was seriously ill, and therefore, he could not approach and therefore, delay is caused.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the non-applicant strongly opposed for the same and submitted that there is

¶14

¶15

918.appr.26.25.odt

¶16

no reasonable and just cause for condonation of delay. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶17

On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the recitals of the applications, the reason mentioned by the applicant appears to be justified one. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶18

(i) The application is allowed.

¶19

(ii) The delay of 136 days is hereby condoned.

¶20

(iii) The application stands disposed of.

¶21

(iv) Criminal Revision Application be registered.

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.6861 OF 2024

¶23

On registration of the criminal revision, issue notice to the non-applicant.