Swati Ashutosh More And ORS. v. Ashutosh Arjun More And ORS.

Tikam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2024 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Ms. Swati Ashutosh More and Ors.

...Applicants Vs.

Mr. Ashutosh Arjun More and Ors.

...Respondents

by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:

2026.01.31 16:05:50 +0530 _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Swapnil S. Mhatre, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Avinash Avhad, Advocate for Respondents.

Mr. S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for the State.

_______________________________________________________________ CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : JANUARY 30, 2026 P.C.:

1.

Mr. Mhatre, learned counsel for the Applicants states that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. father-in-law and sisterin-law of Applicant No.1 were earlier parties before the Learned Trial Court and therefore they have been made parties. However, he states that now even before the Learned Trial court also, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been deleted and, therefore, at the outset he seeks deletion of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2.

Leave as sought is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.

3.

The Interim Application is taken out for condonation of delay of 106 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application challenging legality and validity of order dated 29/04/2024 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Belapur below Exhibit '16' in Family Petition No. E16/2024. 4.

Mr. Swapnil Mhatre, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that as Applicant No.1 has no source of income, she has approached the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority for legal assistance in challenging the impugned order. He submits that as some time was required for appointing him as Advocate and, thereafter, time was required for perusal of the papers and filing Criminal Revision Application, there is delay of 106 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application. 5.

Mr. Avhad, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has strongly opposed the Interim Application. He submits that Applicant No.1 is educated and can earn. However, the said contention is concerned with the merits.

6.

As far as, the delay condonation is concerned, adequate reasons are given in the application. 7.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the application, Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the delay of 106 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application is condoned. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]