1 102 wp.2836.09 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2836 OF 2009 Sanjay Anand Rao Jadhav. ... Petitioner Versus Sou. Sujata Sanjay Jadhav and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Mahindra Agvekar h/f Mr.Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner. Mr. Pravin H. Palave h/f Mr. Vishal Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th September, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2 Taken up for final disposal. 3 The Petitioner – husband filed a revision application before the Court of Sessions for challenging an order passed on the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. By the said order, maintenance 2 102 wp.2836.09 was ordered to be paid to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4 In the revision application, there was a delay of about 47 days. A separate application for condonation of delay was filed, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to the order dated 13 th January, 2011. He submitted that the Petitioner has made compliance with the said order by depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/-. He submitted that a sufficient cause was made out, but the Sessions Court has taken a very technical view of the matter. 6 The Petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by contending that there is no sufficient cause made out. 7 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has complied with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. The delay was only 47 3 102 wp.2836.09 days, which has been explained in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the application for condonation of delay. It is well settled that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted. The Sessions Court has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. This was a case where the Sessions Court ought to have condoned the delay subject to payment of costs. In the present case, amount of costs is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned judgment and order dated 1 st August, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.22 of 2008 is allowed subject to Petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today ; ii. The deposit of the amount of the costs with the Sessions Court shall be treated as sufficient compliance ; 4 102 wp.2836.09 iii. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent ; iv. If compliance is not made within the stipulated time, the order of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay will stand ; v. The Petition is allowed on above terms ; and vi. The Sessions Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J ]