bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2001 PETITION NO. 33 OF 2001 PETITION NO. 33 OF 2001 Kashinath Tukaram Gore ... Petitioner v/s 1. Vandana Kashinath Gore & ors. ... Respondents Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH JUNE, 2008 4TH JUNE, 2008 4TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Revision Application No.164 of 1999. This order confirms the order passed by the J.M.F.C. 5th Court, Nasik, on an application filed by the respondent and two minors for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court has awarded Rs.250/- per month to each applicant i.e. the respondent No.1 and two children. 2. When the petition was admitted on 9.4.2001, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd 2 Court, Nasik, the maintenance amount to be paid from 6.5.1999 till the date of the order within a period of four weeks from 9.4.2001. Ms. Seema Sarnaik appearing for the petitioner had, at the time when the matter was decided for admission agreed on the instructions from the petitioner that he was willing to continue paying maintenance to the children but not to the respondent No.1. 3. It appears from the record that the amount directed to be deposited in Court had not been deposited. In fact, the petitioner had filed Criminal Application No.1481 of 2001 seeking an extension of time to deposit the amount in Court. This Court by order dated 30.4.2001 dismissed that application since sufficient time had elapse from the date the order was passed by the J.M.F.C. and no maintenance has been paid to the wife, respondent No.1 or the children. 4. Ms.Sarnaik for the petitioner states that she is unable to get any instructions from the petitioner. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders passed, the petition is dismissed. 3 6. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.