1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.356 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO.437 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2009 Mohammed Farooq ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. I.A.Saiyed, adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Jafar Shaikh, adv. For the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the revision application, impugned order of maintenance passed by the Family Court on 13.3.1997 is challenged on the ground that divorce had already taken place between the parties sometimes in 1989 and all the articles were returned to her as per the list produced by the applicant. It is contended that notice of the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was never served on the present revision applicant and the matter proceeded ex-parte without proper service. Record reveals that notice was sent by register post A.D. but it was returned with endorsement 2 ‘refused’ and, therefore, the trial Court treated it as a proper service and the matter proceeded ex-parte. According to the revision applicant, endorsement of refusal was totally false and the notice was never tendered to him. According to the applicant, he came to know about the impugned order for the first time in the year 2008 when the attempt was made to execute maintenance order hence there was delay. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted above, delay is hereby condoned in the interest of justice and the revision application stamp no.437/09 be registered as revision application. Criminal Application No.356/09 stands disposed off accordingly. 2 Taking into consideration the facts alleged by the revision applicant, in my considered opinion, it will be necessary to remand the Petition No.E-341/96 to the Family Court for the hearing afresh after giving opportunity to the revision applicant, who was original respondent before the Family Court but subject to certain conditions. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that an amount of Rs.4,800/- towards the maintenance for the year 2008 has been already deposited with the Family Court and the same has been withdrawn by the respondent. He also makes a statement that the applicant shall deposit arrears of maintenance from January, 2009 to June, 2010 within a period 3 of two months from this date before the family Court. 3 In view of the above circumstances, in the interest of justice, revision application is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed in Petition E-341/96 is hereby set aside and the said petition is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to the present applicant/respondent in the said petition to file reply. Maintenance granted by the Family Court as per the impugned order shall be treated as interim maintenance and shall be allowed to be withdrawn by wife subject to her furnishing necessary security to bring back the money in case her application is finally rejected. The family Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose off the said petition as early as possible and preferably within six months. Revision Application stands disposed off accordingly. 4 As the revision application is disposed off, Criminal Application No.460/09 and 15/2010 do not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)