1 CR.APL NO.4093/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4093 OF 2010 (Ramesh Dhondiram Mane and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for the applicants. Mr.N.H.Borade, APP for State. Mr.P.M.Gaikwad, Adv., for R.no.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:June 14th, 2011 1. Mr.Gaikwad has tendered affidavit in reply of respondent no.2, copy already served on Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Counsel for applicants. 2. Heard finally. The husband and other relatives have challenged prosecution initiated by respondent no.2, wife of Ramesh, Smt.Maya vide FIR dt.29.1.2008 for the incident dt. 13th Jan.,2008. 3. Several contentions are canvassed by Mr.Sapkal to attribute that the prosecution is nothing more than persecution of the husband and other relations. He tried to convince that, 2 CR.APL NO.4093/2010 since the parties are not sailing on well from at least 1995 or 2000, there could not be any contact on 13th Jan., 2008, to harass and humiliate respondent no.2 Smt. Maya. 4. Both the learned Counsel have given reference to earlier long drawn litigation including proceedings in terms of Section 494 of IPC and orders passed by this Court. For the present controversy, I need not to dwell upon earlier litigation; only with an observation that the maintenance decree operates against the husband and it is informed by Mr. Gaikwad that the maintenance award is not honoured by the husband, petitioner no.1. 5. Earlier, writ petition challenging the FIR was moved before this Court, however, since it was not prosecuted, the Criminal Application was No.1113/2008 was dismissed on 28.7.2009. Its restoration moved by the applicant no.1 came to be dismissed being Application No. 628/2009 before this Court, however, the latter dismissal of the Petition No.628/2009 is not indicated in the 3 CR.APL NO.4093/2010 present petition. 6. As stated earlier, after completion of investigation, chargesheet is filed. Several witnesses have informed to the role of the accused/applicants in harassing, humiliating respondent No.2 Maya and making illegal demands. Veracity thereof need not be dissected in present application. 7. The observations in proceedings under Domestic Violence Act were without carrying any evidence. Any observation made by the learned Judge will not be frustrating the claim and contentions of the wife of harassment and visiting her parental house on 13th Jan.,2008. 8. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I do not find that the proceeding initiated by the wife is abuse of process and to exercise discretion in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The accused/applicants, are at liberty to prosecute the alternate remedies. 4 CR.APL NO.4093/2010 Observation made herein shall not be construed as a final conclusion as to the merits of the matter. Application dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/4093-10crapl