1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 359 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1297 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Dipak Mane i/b Mr. Kishor Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. The petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1297 of 2008 challenging the order of maintenance passed in favour of his wife. By an order dated 10th September 2008, the Court 2 partly stayed the order subject to the condition that the petitioner paid or deposited the balance amount within 4 weeks. The order dated 10th September 2008 stated that if the compliance was not made within a period of 4 weeks, ad-interim stay would stand vacated. The petitioner did not comply with the order and the ad-interim relief granted by this Court therefore stood vacated by reason of the self- operative order. The petitioner has filed Criminal Application No.359 of 2009 for setting aside the conditional order dated 10th September 2009 and Criminal Application No. 360 of 2009 has been filed for condonation of delay. 2. It may be noted that the conditional order was passed by this Court on 10th September 2008 after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. Ad-interim stay was granted to part of the order of maintenance subject to the deposit of balance amount. That order was not 3 complied. Even the restoration application has been filed in August 2008, that is after a lapse of more than 11 months of the order. 3. It is clear that the petitioner does not want to pay the amount of maintenance and even though stay was partly granted in his favour, he has not complied with the direction of this Court for payment of the balance for nearly a year. In my view, no leniency can be shown for such a conduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)