1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1385 OF 2007 Prakash M.Kothari ...Petitioner vs. Suvarna s. Kole & others ...Respondents CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1386 OF 2007 Prakash M.Kothari ...Petitioner vs. Kum.Koustubh P.Kothari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vijay Mane for the petitioner Mr.T.S.Ingale for the respondent no.1 to 3 in Cri.W.P.no. 1385 of 2007 and for respondent no.1 and 2 in Cri.W.P.No.1386 of 2007 Mr.V.M.Nakhawa, A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner husband and the learned counsel for the first to third respondent(wife and children). These petitions arise out of the orders passed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the 2 nd and 3 rd respondent are the minor daughters. 2 Perusal of the farad sheet shows that on 17 th December 2007, when these petitions came up before this court an undertaking of the petitioner was recorded by this court that the petitioner will deposit the entire 2 amount of maintenance granted by the court below within a period of four weeks from that date. The undertaking was accepted by this court and ad-interim relief was granted. 3 When these petitions came up before this court on 30 th March 2009, this court directed that the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount of arrears in the trial court on or before 13 th April 2009 and will deposit the further maintenance as per the impugned order until further orders. This court also recorded that the first respondent had filed written consent for subjecting herself and her children to DNA test, but the petitioner has not filed such a consent. When these petitions came up before this court on 13th April 2009, a prayer was made by the Advocate for the petitioner for grant of two months time to pay the maintenance amount upto date. Though the said said prayer was opposed by the respondents, by way of indulgence, time of two weeks was grated to the petitioner to deposit the entire balance amount in terms of the earlier orders. While adjourning the matter to 2nd May 2009, this court made it clear that if compliance was not made, the petitions will be liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3 When these petitions came up before this court on 2nd May 2009, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he will deposit a sum of Rs.16,800/- on 21 st April 2009 covering the arrears up to date. However, the statement of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents was recorded in the order passed on that day that the petitioner was still in arrears. When the petition was placed before this court on 17 th June 2009, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner is still in arrears of a 3 sum of more than Rs.23,000/-. 4 Today the learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that the petitioner has not deposited the entire arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that by way of a last chance, further time may be granted to deposit the arrears. The order dated 13 th April 2009 specifically records that the time of two weeks was granted to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of maintenance by way of indulgence and if the amount was not deposited, the petitions are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Time granted by this court expired on 27 th April 2009 i. e. Nearly 2 months back. As of today, the petitioner has not complied with the orders of this court. Hence, indulgence cannot be shown in these petitions of the year 2007. The petitioner has not complied with the orders of this court regarding payment of maintenance to the wife and children and therefore the petitions are dismissed for non prosecution. JUDGE