All Cases

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Machindra Bodke, advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JANUARY 15, 2014 P.C.: 1 Learned APP waives service for respondent and seeks time. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Notice returnable on 12/2/2014. 2 Pendency of this Petition shall not be construed as stay to the proceedings. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga .Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.M.Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014 P.C. . Mr.Arote states that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2. The office objection, therefore, does not survive. The matter to be listed under the caption "For Admission" after notice on 04.07.2014. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 10: spb/ 10wp2-14.sxw CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 02 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. Mr. A. M. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Pasbola with Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.KondeDeshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMEBR, 2014 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is concluded and it is kept for recording of the statement of the Petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.. 3 The Petitioner had made an application for sending the cheque to the document examiner to determine the hand writing on the cheque. The Petitioner denies of his hand writing on the cheque. He admits his signature on the cheque. The learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola, appearing on behalf of the Borey 1/2 Respondent No.2, has stated that it is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the cheque was in the hand writing of the Petitioner. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the cheque bears the signature of the Petitioner and it was given by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 4 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is not necessary to discuss the order of the learned Magistrate in detail. The position is made absolutely clear by the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. In view thereof, I pass the following order. 5 The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Adinterim order, if any stands vacated. ….. (JUDGE)

Order - Status 5: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2527 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th February, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule, returnable on 21st April, 2011. 2 There will be adinterim relief of stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order subject to condition of the Applicant depositing in this Court the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from today. If compliance is not made by depositing the compensation amount within the stipulated time, adinterim relief of stay will stand vacated without further reference to the Court. [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 10: ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (stamp) NO. 16905 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Arjun H. Patil for the Applicant. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08th July, 2011. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. None appears for the Respondent though the notice is duly served. There is no reply filed to the application. 2 Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ A.S.OKA, J ]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar s/o. Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashinath s/o. Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.C.Yeramwar for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mr.M.M.Pabale, AGP for the respondentState in both the petitions. CORAM: SHANTANU KEMKAR AND NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 14, 2018 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable as per C.M.I.S. date. The learned AGP waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Steps of service of notice on respondent No.3 be taken within two weeks. Until the next date, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutinty Committee. List the matter as per C.M.I.S. date. (NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Ms Anita Gavkar i/by Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao For Petitioner Mr P.G. Sawant AGP FOR R.no. 1 To 3 CORAM : A.S. OKA & SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE, JJ DATE : 6th December, 2018 P.C. : Await Service. Stand over to 17/01/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao, Advocate For Petitioners in both WP Mr Y S Khochare, AGP for R.no. 1 and 2 in both W.P.; Mr Ramesh D Rane, Advocate for R.no. 3 in WP/6185/2018. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 21st January, 2019 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 04/02/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2018 Sagar Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2018 Kashiram Arjun Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondent Mr Yeramwar Sushant Chandrakantrao, Advocate for Petitioners in above 3 WP. Mrs R A Salunkhe, AGP for R.no. 1 To 3 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 18th February, 2019 P.C. : Office is directed to place the matters HIGH ON BOARD ON 25/02/2019 along with WP/4649/15 and WP/6842/15. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc BDPSPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions & for Applicant in Civil Application. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2] All these Writ Petitions impugn the orders passed by Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, all the Petitioners are members of one family. 3] It is the contention of the Petitioners that their blood relatives have been subsequently granted validity certificates. For a change, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, in its affidavit, has come with a reasonable stand. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of validity certificates having been subsequently granted in favour of the Petitioner's blood relatives, the Committee is willing to reconsider the issue. 4] In that view of the matter, Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding afresh in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners. Interim protection, which has been granted in favour of the Petitioners by this court on earlier occasions, shall stand continue till decision of the Committee and, in the event, decision of the Committee is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, (4)-WP-4829-17 & group.doc for further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 5] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6] Since Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms, Civil Application No.3201 of 2015 taken out in Writ Petition No.6842 of 2015 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 16: (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc BDPSPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 (Modified as per order dated 8/4/2019) Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions & for Applicant in Civil Application. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE: 25th FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2] All these Writ Petitions impugn the orders passed by Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, all the Petitioners are members of one family. 3] It is the contention of the Petitioners that their blood relatives have been subsequently granted validity certificates. For a change, the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, in its affidavit, has come with a reasonable stand. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of validity certificates having been subsequently granted in favour of the Petitioner's blood relatives, the Committee is willing to reconsider the issue. 4] In that view of the matter, Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted to the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee for deciding afresh in the light of the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the Petitioners. The Respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter on remand within a period of three months from the date of uploading of the order. Interim (4)-WP-4829-17 & group-spk-minutes.doc protection, which has been granted in favour of the Petitioners by this court on earlier occasions, shall stand continue till decision of the Committee and, in the event, decision of the Committee is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, for further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 5] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 6] Since Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms, Civil Application No.3201 of 2015 taken out in Writ Petition No.6842 of 2015 does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Order - Status 17: (Prod)WP482917 & group.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4829 OF 2017 Ramesh Nana Morajkar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6185 OF 2018 Sagar S/o Arjun Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2018 Kashiram S/o Arjun Thakur Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4649 OF 2015 Surendra Bhagwan Morajkar Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3201 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2015 (Prod)WP482917 & group.doc. Prafulla Vitthal Thakur ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7643 OF 2015 Yogesh Shantaram More Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent – State in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Application. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. DATE : 8th APRIL, 2019 P.C. 1] Not on board. Mentioned at 11:00 a.m. 2] Learned counsel for the Petitioners has moved this Court for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 25th February 2019. It is stated that after second sentence in 4th paragraph, the Court has dictated as under : " The Respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter on remand within a period of three months from the date of uploading of the order. " 3] The contention appears to be correct. The said sentence be inserted after the second sentence in 4th paragraph. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] BGP. 2 of 2

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.5102 of 2013. Mr Sandip Bharat Jangam & another ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & others ..Respondents Mr S.M.Oak i/by Sagar Joshi for the Petitioners. CORAM : CORAM : A.S. OKA, & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 18th June, 2013 P.C. Not on board. Taken on board. The challenge in this petition is to the order rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioners in the election of the village Panchayat. In view of the constitutional mandate, at this stage, no interference can be made by this Court. The petitioners will have to adopt the statutory remedy. By keeping the statutory remedy open, the petition is disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.566 OF 2005 Office notes, office : 14 1 · · • Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court's : Court's or Judge's Orders orders or directions : - & Registrar's orders. : Mr. Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATED: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. :- Not on board. Mentioned urgently. Issue notice to the respondents. Returnable on 28/2/2005. Apart from court notice, advocate's notice is also permitted. Till 1/3/2005, there will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) of the petition. All concerned to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3719 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2003 Mr. Rajesh Kisanchand Agarwal. ... Applicant. V/s. Vinay Ramchandra Kulkarni and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R. Agarkar for the Applicant. Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. :- Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that Criminal Revision Application No.360 of 2003 has been disposed of and consequently, the present Application is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, Criminal Application No.3719 of 2003 is dismissed as infructuous. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )