1 Criminal Application No.342/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.342 OF 2000 Indar s/o Jaman Dudhe ... APPLICANT VERSUS Radhabai w/o Indar Dudhe & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Chavan Sudhir K. Advocate for applicant ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Counsel informs, the respondent Radhabai did not turn before Lok Adalat and, therefore, there could not be any settlement. 2. Heard learned counsel. The respondents (wife and children) are served, however, did not turn. The matter was to be settled, however, yield no result. 3. The respondents preferred maintenance proceedings against the husband/ applicant. Interim maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for each of the respondents, which was to be paid within a period of one month as was directed by revisional Court on 13.12.2009. It was based on such deposition, 2 Criminal Application No.342/2000 the written statement was to be accepted. However, the applicant herein, husband, failed to deposit the amount of Rs.15,000/-, arrears in time schedule. He deposited Rs.9000/- on 18.1.2000 and Rs.6600/- on 14.1.2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class was also directed to dispose of the maintenance proceedings within a period of three months, which the husband has apparently avoided and dragged the matter. 4. Counsel for the husband informs, the maintenance proceedings are still pending. Reading the ages of the respondents, it is explicit, by efflux of time Tarabai, who was 7 years old at the material time, has become major. Due care will have to be taken by the wife/ respondent for taking care of said Tarabai. 5. The learned counsel, on instructions, also submits that he is ready to pay the maintenance which is due from 2000 to this date and deposit the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. This statement is accepted. The amount is to be deposited up to 31.3.2011 without any demur. 6. The mistake on the part of the husband/ applicant is not deliberate and the delay is not exorbitant, to brand him a defaulter. The long drawn pendency of the maintenance proceedings now 3 Criminal Application No.342/2000 evolve for its conclusion. Consequently, the order below Exhibit 15 of learned Judge of the Family Court in proceedings No.796/1999 is set aside. The learned Judge shall ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings as it is pending at least since last 11 years. Petition allowed to the extent as above. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri342.00