1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC.CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) No.996 of 2010 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) 82 OF 2010 WITH CRI.APPLN.NO. 83 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2007. Parvez Ahmad Patel ..vs.. Smt.Samina w/o Parvez Patel. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.M.A.Qureshi, Adv. for the applicant. Respondent in-person. C ORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 16th November, 2010. This is an application for restoration of Criminal Application No.82 of 2010 that was dismissed in default by this court on 8/9/2010 since none appeared for the applicant- husband. The Respondent-wife appears in-person and has opposed this application. I, however, find that the reasons given in application for restoration of the said application Nos.82 and 83 of 2010 are good and sufficient and therefore, I am inclined to allow this Criminal Application No.996 of 2010. Consequently, I restore Criminal Application Nos.82 and 83 of 2010. Civil application stands disposed of. 2 Criminal Application Nos.82/2010 and 83/2010. These two applications are taken up together for hearing. Application No.82 of 2010 is for condonation of delay in filing application for setting aside judgment dated 18/02/2010 on the ground that the same was ex parte and the counsel for the applicant-husband did not remain present. Another Cril.Application No.83 of 2010 is for setting aside the said judgment, which is termed as ex parte judgment rendered on 18/2/2010 by this court as the learned counsel for the applicant-husband was not present when the Criminal Revision Application No.93 of 2007 was finally heard and decided. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant- husband has fairly conceded that there is no provision for review under the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, his client would like to take up the remedy available to him before the Apex Court instead of pursuing the present application for setting aside the judgment dated 18/2/2010. In view of the statement, both these applications are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the applicant-husband to put to challenge the judgment and order dated 18/2/2010 in Criminal Revision Application No.93 of 2007, which was passed by this court. The learned counsel for the applicant-husband prays that four weeks’ time should be granted to the applicant for approaching the Apex Court. Respondent-wife, who is present in-person, has vehemently opposed this prayer on the ground that the arrears of maintenance have not been deposited and hardly an amount of Rs.5000/- has been deposited. She, therefore, 3 submits that as a condition precedent 50 per cent amount should be asked to be deposited. I find that following order would meet the ends of justice. Criminal Applications Nos.82 and 83 of 2010 are disposed of. Further four weeks time is granted subject to applicant-husband’s depositing amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand only) in the Family Court Nagpur payable to the respondent-wife within period of two weeks, failing which the order of grant of time of four weeks shall automatically stand recalled without reference to the court. JUDGE. pzc