Ravindra Nana Shinde v. Sau, Meena Ravindra Shinde And ANR

OSK 39-APPR-304-2015.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 304 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL REVISION (STAMP) NO. 354 OF 2015 Shri Ravindra Nana Shinde ... Applicant.

Versus

Sau.Meena Ravindra Shinde & Anr.

... Respondents.

Ms.R.M.Khairnar i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi for Applicant. Ms.Ayodhya Patki for Respondent No.1.

Ms.A.S.Pai, APP for Respondent No.2-State.

CORAM

:

K.K. TATED, J.

DATE :

16TH SEPTEMBER, 2016.

P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2] By this application applicant husband is seeking condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application challenging the common judgment dated 25th February, 2015 passed by Family Court Nashik.

3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court passed the common judgment in three matter. She submits that the advocate for the applicant applied for certified copy. 1/3

OSK 39-APPR-304-2015.odt Same was used in filing Family Court Appeals No.14554 of 2015 and 14556 of 2015. At the time of filing present Criminal Revision Application advocate informed that they required certified copy. Thereafter, applicant again applied for certified copy. Hence, there is delay in filing the present Criminal Revision Application. She submits that the applicant has a good chance of success in the present matter. She submits that if delay is not condoned irreparable loss will be caused to the applicant.

4] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-wife vehemently opposed the present Criminal Application. She submits that applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 40 days. She further submits that the applicant is not paying the maintenance charges regularly. She submits that though the Court directed the applicant to pay the maintenance charges directly to the respondent-wife, applicant is depositing the same in the Registry of this Court. On the basis of these submissions the advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 opposed the present Criminal Application.

2/3

OSK 39-APPR-304-2015.odt 5] Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the reasons disclosed in application, I satisfied that applicant has made out a case for allowing this application. Hence following order;

i) The delay of 40 days in filing Criminal Revision Application is condoned.

ii) Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (K.K. TATED, J.) 3/3