* 1 * Cri.Appln. 231.2010 in W.P. 2396.2010 23.11.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 231 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2396 OF 2010 Mr. Abdul Aziz Bittan .....Applicant v/s. 1. Mrs.Rukhsana w/o. Abdul Aziz D/o. Iqbal Ahmed ....Respondent * * * * Mr. Mateen Shaikh h/f. Mr. A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 23 November, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed for restoration of the petition which stood dismissed on 18th August, 2009 on account of the self- operative order dated 9th July, 2009 passed in the petition. The notice of the application has been served upon respondent no.1, who is absent despite service. * 2 * Cri.Appln. 231.2010 in W.P. 2396.2010 23.11.2010 2. The order dated 9th July, 2009 reads as follows :- 1. Await service till 18 “ th August, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner will serve private notice to the 1st and 2nd respondents. If the affidavit of service is not filed before 18th August, 2009, the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court. 3. Thereafter, however, the petitioner took no steps whatsoever pursuant to the directions given in the order. Mr. Shaikh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, the steps could not be taken because the petitioner was not aware of the order. This submission cannot be accepted since the petitioner was represented before the Court through his lawyer on the date of the order. Mr. Shaikh, then states that Advocate Santosh Mhaske who appeared on behalf of Advocate Siddiqui for the petitioner on that date, did not communicate the order to his senior. If there is any miscommunication between the advocate on record and the advocate appearing for him in the court, that cannot be taken up as as ground for either restoration or for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration. * 3 * Cri.Appln. 231.2010 in W.P. 2396.2010 23.11.2010 4. The writ petition of which the petitioner seeks restoration of the present application arises out of the order dated 18thSeptember, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2008. The Criminal Appeal was filed by respondent no. 1-wife against the petitioner-husband to challenge refusal of interim maintenance to her in C.C. No.70/Misc/2007 filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai. The Sessions Court by its order allowed the appeal and awarded interim maintenance of Rs.750/- to respondent no.1 from the date of filing of the interim application for maintenance till the date of disposal of the main petition in the lower court. On a query from the court, the learned counsel states that the stage of the main proceedings in the trial court is of final arguments in the proceedings. In that circumstance, no purpose will be served by restoring the writ petition. Hence, the application for restoration is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 4 * Cri.Appln. 231.2010 in W.P. 2396.2010 23.11.2010