Anand S/O. Jagdish Joshi v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary Ministy Of Home Mantralaya Mumbai And Others

wp193.17 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2017 Anand S/o Jagdish Joshi -vsState of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Mohd. Shakir, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.R.Chutake, APP for the respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Kukday, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 06.12.2017.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 05/12/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Revision No.1 of 2015, by which the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed and the order dated 24/11/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim below Exhibit-12 in Misc.Criminal Application No.290 of 2013 came to be confirmed.

The petitioner had filed an application (Exhibit12) before the learned Magistrate for submitting correct account of maintenance. According to the petitioner, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not claim maintenance for the period, which was due for more than one year, from the date of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted, that he was not entitled to pay maintenance to the

wp193.17 2/2 respondent Nos.2 and 3 for about 29 months. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 24/11/2014. Being aggrieved against the said order dated 24/11/2014, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the said revision application.

A perusal of both the impugned orders show, that there is no error in the said orders nor can the said orders to be perverse, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the parties to act upon the authenticate copy of this order.

JUDGE KHUNTE