( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 681 OF 2009 Santosh s/o Sundar Pawar and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Sushma s/o Santosh Pawar and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. B.S. Kudale, advocate for the petitioners. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 14th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petition is filed against interlocutory order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad while granting stay in the matter of criminal appeal no. 96/2008. The impugned order is rendered in exercise of discretion of the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a driver and unable to fulfill such onerous conditions. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner No. 1 is facing proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, direction to deposit heavy amount would not be proper. It is made clear that if any quantum is awarded to the wife and the child – respondent No. 2, then the same may be adjusted towards the amount deposited by the petitioners in the proceedings of criminal appeal no. 96/2008 and shall be subject to final decision of the said appeal. No interference is warranted in the discretionary order, yet, by way of concession, the petitioners are directed to deposit the said amount as per the impugned order in four (4) equal instalments within period of six (6) months. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP681-09 ( 3 )