Shashikant Dnyanadev Lokhande And ORS v. Minakshi Shashikant Lokhande

3-WP-4726-2025 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION 3 CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4726 OF 2025 Shashikant Dnyanadev Lokhande And Ors ...Petitioners

VERSUS

Minakshi Shashikant Lokhande ...Respondent ...

Mr. Vinod Hirani, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. C. D. Mali, APP for the State ...

IRESH MASHAL

CORAM

:

NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE :

29th JANUARY 2026.

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date:

2026.01.30 16:44:59 +0530 P.C.

1.

Petitioners have challenged the order dated 17th October 2025 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Kolhapur in Cri. Miscellaneous Application No. 88 of 2021, by which the petitioners have challenged the interim maintenance order passed by the Trial Court thereby awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to respondent nos. 1 and 2. As there was delay of 155 days in filing the appeal challenging that order, the petitioners filed delay condonation application. The Appellate Court allowed the application subject to the Petitioners depositing accumulated interim maintenance amount within 45 days from the date of order i.e. from 17/10/2025. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said condition. Iresh

3-WP-4726-2025 (CR).DOC 2.

Learned advocate for the petitioners states that the said condition is onerous and therefore, it may be relaxed and the appeal may be directed to be registered and heard on merits. 3.

Petitioner no. 1 is serving as Peon in District and Sessions Court, Kolhapur. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner no. 1 is earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. The Trial Court has awarded meager amount of maintenance which the petitioner is liable to pay. The condition imposed by the Appellate Court, therefore, cannot be termed as onerous. 4.

On a query, learned advocate submits that the arrears are approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs.

5.

This Court is of the considered view that maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is meager amount and it is the duty of the petitioners to pay the arrears of maintenance. In that view of the matter, the condition imposed on the petitioners by the Appellate Court cannot be said to be onerous. There is no merit in the petition. 6.

Petition is dismissed.

7.

Time of 45 days granted to the petitioners is extended by further 45 days from today.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Iresh