IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.328 OF 1998 Dilip Bhaskar Mede, C/o.Takali-Khatgaon, Tal.Nagar, At Present No.1361506, K.R.T.R.D.B. Mede, Second Batalian Regiment, C/o.56 A.P.O. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Chandrakala Dilip Mede, R/o.C/o.Chabu Rakmaji Bansode, R/o.Ratadgaon, Tal. And Dist. Ahmednagar 2. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS None for petitioner. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State Mr.D.D.Pokharkar h/f. Mr.D.R.Korde, learned counsel for respondent no.1. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2347 OF 1998 Chandrakala Dilip Mede, Age-Major, Occu-Household R/o.C/o.Chabu Rakmaji Bansode, R/o.Ratadgaon, Tal. And Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS ( 2 ) 1. Dilip Bhaskar Mede, Age-Major, Occu-Agriculture & Service, C/o.Takali-Khatgaon, Tal.Nagar, At Present No.1361506, K.R.T.R.D.B. Mede, Iind Batalian Regiment, C/o.56 A.P.O. 2. State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.D.D.Pokharkar h/f. Mr.D.R.Korde, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State None for respondent no.1. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Vide writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 429/1994 by its judgment and order dated 09/04/1998 confirming the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Ahmednagar in Criminal M.A. No.45/1994 decided on 16/09/1994, awarding monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs.500/- from the date of application in favour of respondent no.1 Chandrakala in the writ petition. 2. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 20/08/1999. ( 3 ) 3. Respondent no.1 in the writ petition had filed Criminal Appl.No.2347/1998 to vacate the interim orders granted by this Court on 29/07/1998 and the order of expeditious hearing of the writ petition. As Cri.Appl.No.2347/1998 is the offshoot of the writ petition, it is heard alongwith the writ petition. 4. Earlier the writ petition was fixed for final hearing on number of occasions, but not heard as the learned counsel for writ petitioner remained absent and on some other grounds. On 16/08/2011 and 18/08/2011, none appeared for writ petitioner. Today also when the writ petition is called out, none appeared for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no.1/wife, who is the applicant in Cri.Appl.No.2347/1998. Also perused the record and proceeding received from the Lower Court and the judgment impugned delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.429/1994 dated 12/10/1994 and the judgment of the Lower Court in Cri.M.A.No.45/1994 dated 16/09/1994. 6. It is specifically averred in para no.4 of the writ petition that notice of the application filed for maintenance u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. by respondent no.1 against the petitioner was served upon the petitioner on 18/05/1994. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing on 01/06/1994, 18/06/1994, and on 20/06/1994. It is ( 4 ) further urged that on 20/06/1994, the matter was adjourned to 11/08/1994 for filing the say in the Cri.M.A.45/1994. It is stated that the petitioner was intimated that the matter was listed on 20/09/1994, but meantime, the matter was taken on board of 23/08/1994. Evidence of respondent no.1 was recorded on 14/09/1994 and the application was decided on 16/09/1994. 7. I have perused the observations of the Lower Court, so also the observations of the Revisional Court, particularly in paragraph no.9 of the judgment in Criminal Revision No.429/1994, wherein it is observed that the record received from the Trial Court discloses that on 18/05/1994, petitioner herein who was opponent before the First Court appeared before the learned Lower Court and prayed for time to file say on the said application. It is further observed that after 18/05/1994, the petitioner herein never appeared in the Trial Court and applied for adjournment to file say to the application filed by respondent no.1. As no say was filed by the petitioner herein, lastly the application was adjourned in the month of August 1994. It appears from the observations particularly in para no.9 that an application was moved by the respondent no.1 herein to record her evidence as even though opportunities were given to the petitioner, he had not filed his say, hence the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of respondent no.1 and proceeded ex-parte and pronounced the judgment. In absence of any attempts on the part of the petitioner herein to seek adjournment before the Trial Court, it can not be said that the learned Lower Court is at fault to proceed ex-parte. Even ( 5 ) though this writ petition is pending since 1998 and listed for final hearing on number of occasions, no steps were taken by the petitioner to proceed with the matter. Considering the record received from the Lower Court, this Court does not find any fault with the order impugned. In the substance, writ petition is devoid of any merits and accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 8. Cri.Appl.No.2347/1998 is hereby allowed. All interim orders passed in the writ petition stand vacated. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUG.2011/cri.w.p.328-98