Bombay High Court
Deepak Narasimha Nayak vs Sheetal W/O. Deepak Nayak And Anr on 1 April, 2019
Author: Mridula Bhatkar
Bench: Mridula Bhatkar
Sherla V.
appr.319.2016_11.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.319 OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.344 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.344 OF 2016
Deepak Narsimha Nayak ... Applicant
Vs.
Sheetal w/o. Deepak Nayak & anr. ... Respondents
Mr.J.A. Udaipuri with Ms.S.K Electricwala i/b Udaipuri & Co. for the
Applicant
Ms.L.R. Temkar for Resp. No.1
Mrs.M.R. Tidke, APP, for the Respondent - State
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: APRIL 1, 2019 P.C.:
1. Criminal Application No.319 of 2016 is moved for condonation of delay of 383 days in filing the revision application whereas Criminal Application No.320 of 2016 is filed for stay of the impugned order dated 5.1.2015 passed in M.J. Petition No.E-
470/2013.
Page 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2019 04:11:17 :::
appr.319.2016_11.doc
2. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay of 383 days in filing the revision application. The learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 5.1.2015 awarded Rs.25,000/- to the wife and Rs.15,000/- to the minor son as maintainance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submits that the said order was challenged in a civil Court and the matter was taken up before the Division Bench of this Court but the hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 16.3.2016 disposed of the said matter by directing that the order is to be challenged before the Criminal Bench. The learned Counsel submits that thereafter, this revision is preferred and as the applicant was prosecuting before another forum, he is entitled to get the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act. He further submits that till June, 2018, the applicant/husband was paying the maintainance of Rs.40,000/- regularly. However, now, he is not employed and hence, he is unable to pay maintainance. Therefore, he has preferred the present criminal applications.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the husband is a continuous defaulter and only after the issuance of orders of the Court, he had come forward to pay the amount of Page 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2019 04:11:17 ::: appr.319.2016_11.doc maintainance. She submits that as on today, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs is due and unless that amount is paid, this application should not be allowed.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this matter can be put an end to as the applicant is ready to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in lumpsum towards full and final settlement of maintainance to the wife and he is ready to continue to take responsibility of the minor son and / or he is ready to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the minor son towards his maintainance.
5. Heard submissions and considered. The Criminal application No.319 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of with the following order:
i) The delay of 383 days in filing the Revision application is condoned subject to the applicant / husband depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards arrears in a breakup of Rs.50,000/- to be paid on or before 9.4.2019 and the balance Rs.50,000/- to be paid on or before 2.5.2019.
Page 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2019 04:11:17 :::
appr.319.2016_11.doc
ii) The respondent/wife to consider the proposal of the applicant for lumpsum settlement with regard to her maintainance amount and report on the next date of hearing.
6. List the Criminal Application No.320 of 2016 alongwith the Revision Application on 24.6.2019.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2019 04:11:17 :::