Vishvanath Shivajirao Pawar v. Rupali Vishvanath Pawar

2026:BHC-AUG:3678 {1} CR APPLN 4818 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4818 OF 2025 IN REVNST/13386/2025 Vishvanath S/o. Shivajirao Pawar Age : 39 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o. Plot No.23-A, Beside Megha Computers, Nitin Nagar, Shahada, Tal.Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar.

.....Applicant (Org. Respondent)

Versus

Rupali W/o Vishvanath Pawar Age : 22 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Beside Ramnagar, Police Custody, Jalna. Tal. and Dist.Jalna.

.....Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) .....

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Ujjwal Patil h/f.Mr.Yogesh Murlidhar Patil Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Ajinkya A. Reddy (Appointed through Legal Aid) .....

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

DATE : 27 JANUARY, 2026 ORDER :

1.

Instant application is for condonation of delay of 105 days caused in filing revision against judgment and order dated 06-06-2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jalna in Petition No.E-17 of 2025 granting maintenance to wife to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month.

{2} CR APPLN 4818 OF 2025 2.

Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that applicant and respondent are husband and wife. That, they were married on 20-06-2018. That, a daughter and a son are borne out of said wedlock. That, respondent wife had filed Petition No.E-17 of 2025 for grant of maintenance on the allegations that, after marriage, the applicant and his family members ill-treated respondent on account of birth of female child. That, they also ill-treated her for demand of dowry. That, she was driven out of house on 13-04-2024 and as she was not having any source of income, she filed above proceedings for grant of maintenance. That, it is alleged that in the said proceedings, applicant was served with notice, but he failed to appear before the Family Court and hence, said petition proceeded ex-parte and finally, learned Judge, Family Court by its Order dated 06-06-2025 granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent. 3.

Learned counsel submits that he was not served with the notice in the said proceedings. That, when he contacted with his Advocate at Jalna, he got information about the impugned order and then, he contacted his Advocate at Aurangabad for filing the revision. That, thereafter, as per advise, he collected certified copies of the necessary documents and for the said reason, delay has been caused. That,

{3} CR APPLN 4818 OF 2025 delay is not intentional and deliberate. Therefore, he prays for condonation of delay.

4.

The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. He submits that there are no plausible reasons for delay. 5.

Heard. Perused the record. It appears that the impugned order dated 06-06-2025 is passed ex-parte. That, the delay caused is not deliberate or intentional. Though, learned counsel for the respondent opposes for condonation of delay, for the reasons stated by the applicant and to meet the ends of justice, the delay of 105 days caused in filing revision is required to be condoned. Hence, following order :

ORDER

(I) Criminal Application No.4818 of 2025 is allowed. (II) Delay of 105 days caused in filing revision is condoned. (III) Registry to verify and register criminal revision application. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT