Bombay High CourtWP/111/2016dismissed

Yogesh Purushottam Pandya And Others v. Sou. Priyanka W/O Yogesh Pandya

2016-05-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq1 pages

1 wp111.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2016 (YOGESH PURUSHOTTAM PANDYA & 3 OTH...VS..PRIYANKA YOGESH PANDYA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MAY 05, 2016.

Heard Shri A.A.Naik, advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the petitioners are procrastinating the matter to avoid payment of maintenance which amount comes to about Rs.Eight Lakhs. To test the bonafides of the petitioner, by the order dated 7th April, 2016, the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.Two Lakh with the Registry of this Court.

The learned advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners are not in a position to deposit the amount. The conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge appear to be proper.

Considering the facts, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

JUDGE RRaut..