← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/339/2003rule discharged

Dashrath Deorao Jadhav v. Shobha Dashrath Jadhav

2016-03-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 339 OF 2003 Dashrath s/o Deorao Jadhav, Age: 43 years, Occ: Service, R/o. S.R.P. Group III ( C ) Company Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

...Petitioner

versus Sow. Shobha w/o Dashrath Jadhav, Age: 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Malipura, Old Jalna, Jalna, Dist. Jalna.

...Respondent

.....

None for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent (Absent) .....

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 14th MARCH, 2016 PER COURT :

This Court has ordered the Court notice to the petitioner. When it was sought to be served, Police Inspector of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna has informed that the petitioner was posted at Nashik for Kumbhmela bandobast. It is further informed that the petitioner was informed about pendency of the present matter and Court notice on his Mobile No. 9049989186.

2.

In this back ground, in my opinion, there is sufficient

-2intimation to the petitioner and the petitioner has chosen not to appear before this Court.

3.

In the petition, the petitioner Dashrath was married to one Shobha and blessed with two daughters Pooja and Arti. Under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has ordered the present petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in the criminal application, by order dated 19/12/2001.

4.

The said order, to some extent, is upset by the revisional Court and by order dated 20/05/2003 ordered that wife of the petitioner namely Shobha should get maintenance of Rs.1000/- from the petitioner. These orders which are questioned in the present petition.

5.

Perused both the orders passed by learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge.

6.

The petitioner is serving in police department and has not chosen to respond the Court notice though he was intimated by the Police Inspector of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna. In this matter and having regard to the observations made by learned

-3Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge in the orders impugned, no case for interference is made out. As such, the petition fails, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ] Tupe/14.03.16