IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2007. Mr. Mahendra Keshav Padwal. ..Petitioner. versus Sou.Bebi @ Nandini Mahendra Padwal & Ors...Respondents. .... Mr. Dilip Bodke, for the Petitioner. Mr. P.J.Pawar, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 9th September : 9th September : 9th September 2008. 2008. 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. This is a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973") for challenging Judgment and Order dated 16th November 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune. An application was filed before the Family Court by the first and the second Respondents under section 125 of the said Code of 1973. The said application was allowed by the Family Court by order dated 15th July 2004 granting maintenance to the first and the second Respondents. The first Respondent was held entitled to maintenance of : 2 : Rs.1,500/- per month and the second Respondent held entitled to maintenance @ Rs.200/- per month. 2. An application was made by the Petitioner before the Family Court by invoking power under section 126 of the Code of 1973 for setting aside the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 15th July 2004. There was a delay in filing the said application and therefore, a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. By the order impugned in this Petition, the Application for condonation of delay has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 3. When this Petition came up before this Court on 30th June 2008, it was pointed out by the contesting Respondents on the basis of affidavit dated 28th November 2007 that the Petitioner had not paid the arrears of maintenance totally amounting to Rs.48,200/- as of that date. This Court directed that the Petitioner shall deposit the arrears in this Court within a period of four weeks from 30th June 2008. 4. When this Petition was heard on 20th August : 3 : 2008, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the first and the second Respondents that the Petitioner has not complied with the order dated 30th June 2008 passed by this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that though there was some short-fall, substantial amount has been deposited. Paragraph nos.2 to 4 of order dated 20th August 2008 reads thus :- "2. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that there is no compliance with the directions contained in order dated 30th June 2008 passed by this Court. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that though there is some shortfall of the amount, substantial compliance has been made by the petitioner. 3. If the case of the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the amount is to be considered, the petitioner will have to deposit the entire arrears as of today alongwith costs of Rs.3,000/- within a period of two weeks from : 4 : today. 4. By way of indulgence, stand over till 9th September 2008. If compliance as aforesaid is not reported, the petition will be liable to be dismissed only on the said ground." 5. The office noting shows that there is no compliance made by the Petitioner of the earlier orders. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that the order of this Court passed on 20th August 2008 was communicated by him to the Petitioner, but till today, the Petitioner has not responded. 6. The Petitioner was supposed to deposit entire arrears payable as of November 2007 within the period of four weeks from 30th June 2008. Till today, the compliance has not made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not deposited costs of Rs.3,000/- as indicated in order dated 20th August 2008. 7. The first and the second Respondents have not received the amount in terms of order passed by the : 5 : Family Court and this Court. 8. The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the conduct of the Petitioner, this is not a case to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The power under section 482 of the said Code of 1973 has to be exercised sparingly and that also in a very rare cases. In view of the default made by the Petitioner, no case for interference is made out. The Petition is rejected. If any amount deposited by the Petitioner is pending in this Court, the first and the second Respondents will be entitled to withdraw the same. ( A.S.Oka,J.) A.S.Oka,J.) A.S.Oka,J.)