( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 536 OF 2009 Sunil s/o Hanmantrao Chavan PETITIONER VERSUS Chayabai w/o Sunil Chavan (Died) and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.D. Kendre, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 14th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Cri. Misc. Application No. 48/2007. 3. The petitioner challenged maintenance order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Cri. Application No. 550/2006 before the Sessions Court by filing revision application which was delayed by four (4) months and 11 days. He, therefore, sought ( 2 ) condonation of delay by filing Cri.Misc. Application No. 48/2007. He asserted that he was unable to prefer the revision petition within prescribed period of limitation because he was suffering from illness and, therefore, could not contact the advocate. The learned Sessions Judge rejected his application for condonation of delay. Hence, the petition. 4. The ground put forth by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was that due to illness on account of chikanguniya, he was unable to contact his advocate during the relevant period. He asserted that he was bedridden for period of seven (7) months and 11 days. He did not place on record any medical certificate to prove that he was suffering from chikanguniya since 9th May, 2007. The exparte decision was rendered on 9th May, 2007 in the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and an amount of Rs. 500/- was awarded in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2 towards monthly maintenance allowance. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that inspite of sending of the notice of such proceedings, the petitioner had refused to accept the notice and did not participate in the trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It has been further noticed that though ground of illness was put forth, yet, it was contradicted by the conduct of the petitioner himself in as much as he appeared before the trial Court in another proceedings filed under section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( 3 ) alongwith his advocate. Thus, the petitioner did not corroborate his contention by filing a medical certificate nor his conduct was fair in as much as he was attending the Court in other proceedings during the relevant period. It is but natural that such a ground put forth by the petitioner was unacceptable in view of his own conduct and the circumstances brought on surface of the record. Under these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The amount deposited by the petitioner be transferred to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp536-09