← Library
Bombay High CourtAPPLN/1189/2016disposed off

Yogita W/O. Sham Kumbhakarna v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-04-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre2 pages

1189.16crapln -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1189 OF 2016 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5290 OF 2014 IN/WITH CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 133 OF 2014 Yogita w/o Sham Kumbhakarna ...Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & ors.

...Respondents

.....

Mr. Santosh Bhosale, Advocate h/f Mr. S. P. Brahme, Advocate for applicant Mr. D. V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent/State Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 to 10 .....

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 1st APRIL, 2016 ORAL ORDER :

Both these applications are for seeking either temporary custody or right to visit the children.

2.

Criminal Revision Application No. 133 of 2014 is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalgaon dismissing the appeal preferred by the present applicant confirming the findings recorded by learned Magistrate, whereby the Magistrate has ordered present applicant to send the children in summer vacation to the present respondent wife/mother of children

1189.16crapln -2and also to arrange the meeting of children in other vacation. 3.

This Court, while admitting the revision, after hearing the parties, stayed direction Nos. 2 and 3 passed by learned Magistrate in the order dated 14/05/2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 563 of 2011. Learned Counsel for the respective parties are in agreement that the order of admission and stay was after hearing both the sides and the Hon'ble Judge, who has passed the order in revision, staying direction Nos. 2 and 3, has interacted the parties, so also the children.

4.

In my opinion, there are no subsequent developments, which prompt the present Court to modify the earlier order but for the prayer of mother for temporary custody or visit the children. 5.

In view of above, in my opinion, no case for grant of prayer in both the applications is made out. As such, both the applications fail and stand rejected.

6.

The hearing of the Criminal Revision Application No.133 of 2014 is expedited.

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ] Tupe/01.04.16