( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 493 OF 2009 Ramjan s/o Raheman Tadavi, R/o Wadari, Tq. Yawal, District Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS Sarala Ramjan Tadavi, R/o Krushnapuram Society, Gat No. 87, Plot No. 4-A, Behind Gujaral Petrol Pump, Jalgaon, at present R/o c/o Nilamkumar Imam Tadavi, Ajantha Backward Housing Society, Ajantha Square, Behind Bafna Water Service, Ajantha Road, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Pawar, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th August, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard ( 2 ) finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is husband of the respondent. The respondent filed proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code bearing Cri.Misc. Application No. 356/2004 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalgaon. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the respondent was entitled to receive separate maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1000/- p.m. Consequently, by order dated 30-12-2007, the application of the respondent was partly allowed. It was the case of the petitioner that he divorced the respondent in presence of witnesses by giving talaq which was pronounced thrice as required under the Personal Law. He examined himself and DW2 Mohd. Supdu in support of his such defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the talaq dated 11-06-2004 was not duly proved as required under the law. The necessary corollary was that the matrimonial relationship between them was held as subsisting. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred criminal revision application No. ( 3 ) 15/2008 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2009. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Swapnil Patil would submit that the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner had filed leave note due to illness. The leave note for period between 23rd March, 2009 to 26th March, 2009 was granted by the Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.R. Patil was suffering from Heart attack and was immediately required to undertake medical treatment for which he sought leave during the relevant period. Inspite of such a reason, the written application has been hurriedly dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, learned advocate Mr. Swapnil Patil would submit that this is a fit case in which the impugned order may be set aside and the criminal revision application may be restored to its original position for the purpose of final hearing. Mr. Pawar, holding for Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate, does not dispute the fact that Mr. T.R. Patil, advocate, had filed leave note due ( 4 ) to the medical reasons. Needless to say that the absence of Mr. T.R. Patil, advocate, before the revisional Court was quite unintentional. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge himself had granted leave note of the advocate. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge should have adjourned the hearing of the criminal revision application wherein the same advocate was appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The impugned judgement reveals that the question as to whether a valid talaq was given by the petitioner to the respondent was required to be considered on basis of the material placed on record. The learned Sessions Judge has not analyzed the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner in support of his such contention. There is no reference to the oral evidence of DW2 Mohd. Supdu. Nor the effect of the newspaper publication is discussed by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that on basis of omnibus observation appearing from paragraph No. 4 of the impugned judgement, the revision petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. It is true that the ( 5 ) revisional Court is not required to make threadbare analysis of the evidence for the purpose of re- appreciation thereof like an appellate Court. It also does not mean that the revision petition can be decided without any reference to the evidence on record in “touch-and-go” manner. The impugned judgement indicates dis-satisfactory manner of disposal of the revision petition and as such, for both the reasons, the same is liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement is set aside. The criminal revision application No. 15/2008 is restored to its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 5th October, 2009. The learned Sessions Judge shall appropriately decide the criminal revision application on its own merits. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp493-09 ( 6 )