1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 of 2008 Shivaji Ganpati Patil ... Petitioner versus Sou Kalpana S. Patil & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for petitioner Ms.S.V. Gajare APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 8th December 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate Kavathe-Mahankal on 16th March 2007 and order confirming it passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli on 16th June 2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the quantum of maintenance but restricted his challenge to the date from which the maintenance was ordered to be paid. By the impugned order, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay maintenance from the date of 2 the application. This is permissible. Learned counsel however submitted that the respondent wife was responsible for the delay in the hearing and therefore learned Magistrate ought not to have granted maintenance from the date of the application but ought to have granted it from the date on which the order was passed. On my direction, petitioner has produced on record a copy of the roznama and also a summary thereof. Perusal of the roznama and summary presented by the petitioner's advocate shows that the petitioner himself was absent on 14/02/2003, 29/03/2003, 04/08/2003, 30/04/004, 14/07/2004, 01/03/2005, 03/06/2006, 11/07/2006, 22/11/2006, 22/11/2006 and 20/01/2007. Thus, the petitioner himself was also partly responsible for the delay. Taking this into consideration, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the discretion judicially exercised by the two courts below in awarding the maintenance from the date of application. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)