Dismissed¶38

Samadhan Ananda Lokhande v. Priyanka Samadhan Lokhande and Another

Bombay HC22 Apr 2026APPLN/4351/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; Family Court Jalna; Application No. E-135/2021; order dated 09-12-2021; Criminal Revision Application No. 72/2022; modification of order dated 25-10-2023; deposit of 50% of arrears; cumulative maintenance Rs. 7,500/- p.m.; non-compliance with court order; application after two years' delay; no provision cited; desire to protract proceedings; application dismissed without costs; Abhay J. Mantri, J.; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; decided 22 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Applicant has not complied with, but has flouted, the order dated 25-10-2023 (including the condition of depositing 50% of the arrears); on that ground itself he is not entitled to any modification of that order. ¶32

Samadhan Ananda Lokhande vs Priyanka Samadhan Lokhande and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant is entitled to modification of the order dated 25-10-2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 72/2023, and to further time to conduct the evidence/trial.

¶13

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

A party dissatisfied with an order must apply for modification within a reasonable time, not after a lapse of two years; the reasons disclosed were neither satisfactory nor convincing, and the delay indicates the Applicant desires to protract the matter rather than proceed with it.

¶33

Key takeaways

On being queried, the learned Advocate for the Applicant could neither answer nor explain under which provision the modification application was moved.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application No. 4351 of 2025 (in Criminal Revision Application No. 72/2022) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.) — dismissed. By order dated 25-10-2023 the Court had partly allowed the applicant-husband's revision and quashed the Family Court, Jalna maintenance order dated 09-12-2021 in Application No. E-135/2021, subject to deposit of 50% of the arrears within six weeks and continued payment of cumulative maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- p.m., failing which the quashed order would stand automatically restored. The applicant failed to comply. Two years later, on 02.11.2025, he sought modification of the order and time to conduct evidence/trial, without being able to cite any enabling provision. Held: (i) non-compliance with, and flouting of, the order disentitled the applicant to any modification; (ii) modification must be sought within a reasonable time — a two-year delay with unsatisfactory reasons showed an intent to protract the proceedings. Application dismissed, no costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:17729

¶2

(1) 903criapln4351.25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

903 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4351 OF 2025 IN REVN/72/2022

¶5

SAMADHAN ANANDA LOKHANDE

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

PRIYANKA SAMADHAN LOKHANDE AND ANOTHER

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

Mr. D. A. Naik, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. K. B. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 22^th APRIL, 2026

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

The Applicant has filed this Application for seeking modification in the order dated 25-10-2023, passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 72/2023.

¶14

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

At the outset, it appears that by order dated 25-10-2023, this Court partly allowed the Revision Application and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 09-12-2021 passed by the Family Court in Application No.E-135/2021, subject to the condition mentioned therein. I would like to reproduce the said order as under:

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

(2)

¶18

903criapln4351.25.odt

¶19

“[I] The criminal revision application is partly allowed; [ii] The impugned order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the Family Court in Application E-135 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside subject to condition that the applicant deposits 50% of the arrears as per the order dated 9.12.2021 with the Family Court, within a period of six weeks from today, further continue to pay the cumulative maintenance @ 7,500/- p.m. to the respondents till final disposal of the application No. E-135 of 2021. [iii] Parties to appear before the Family Court on 8.11.2023. The applicant may cross-examine respondent No.1/wife within four weeks from the date of appearance.

¶20

[iv] The applicant shall file evidence affidavit within a week thereafter.

¶21

[v] Cross-examination of applicant/husband shall be completed within a period of 4 weeks after filing of his evidence affidavit.

¶22

[vi] The learned Judge, Family Court, Jalna is requested to expeditiously decide the proceeding as early as possible and in any event, within six months from today.

¶23

[vii ] Non deposit of maintenance amount as indicated in Clause (ii) shall entail in restoration of order dated 9.12.2022 and any steps taken in terms of directions mentioned in clauses (iii) to (v) shall stand vitiated automatically without further reference to this Court.

¶24

[viii] The revision application stands disposed of in above terms.”

¶25

Bare perusal of the said order, it appears that this court

¶26

has partly allowed the Revision Application and gave an opportunity to conduct the evidence, subject to the deposit of 50% of the arrears. However, he failed to comply with the order. Therefore, the matter was proceeded against him. It further reveals that the court has passed a detailed order and, by clause (vii), made it clear that failure to comply with the same would automatically revive the order dated 09.12.2022. Similarly, directed to the Family Court to decide the proceeding within six months from said date, i.e. 24.04.2024.

¶27

2 of 4

¶28

(3)

¶29

903criapln4351.25.odt

¶30

It seems that instead of complying with the order of this court, on 02.11.2025, i.e., two years later, the Applicant filed this Application, seeking modification of the order dated 25.10.2023, and further seeking time to conduct the evidence/trial, which is not at all tenable.

¶31

On putting a query to the learned Advocate for the Applicant under which provision he has moved this application, he could neither answer nor explain.

¶32

On the contrary, it clearly appears that the Applicant has not complied with the order of this Court but flouted the same. Therefore, in my opinion, on that ground itself, the Applicant is not entitled to any modification in the order passed by this court.

¶33

Apart from the above, the reasons disclosed in the application are neither satisfactory nor convincing to interfere in it in this Application. If the Applicant was not satisfied with the order of this Court, he has to apply to the Court within a reasonable time, not after a lapse of two years. The said conduct of the Applicant indicates that the Applicant desires to protract the matter rather than proceed with the same.

¶34

3 of 4

¶35

(4)

¶36

903criapln4351.25.odt

¶37