1 (REVN 49/2001) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2001 Shri Ramesh Bapu Sonavane .... Petitioner. V/s Smt. Ujwala Ramesh Sonawane and others. .... Respondents. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin B. Patil i/b Mr. Uday Warunjikar for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2010 P.C.:- 1. When this matter was called out in the afternoon session, since the Counsel for the Petitioner was not present, this Court had dismissed the Petition. Thereafter, the Counsel for Petitioner appeared and requested the Court that he may be permitted to argue. The said order which was dictated but not signed, is recalled. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at length. 2 (REVN 49/2001) 3. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/01/2001 passed by the learned JMFC, Koregaon. By the said order, the JMFC was pleased to direct the Petitioner herein to pay maintenance @ Rs 100/- per month to the respondent – wife and Rs 200/- each to his two children. 4. It is submitted that consent terms were filed by both parties and the Petitioner had agreed to pay Rs 800/- to the respondent – wife and Rs 200/- each to his two children. It is further submitted that, however, this order could not have been modified by the Trial Court by passing the impugned order. 5. In my view, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is an admitted position that consent pursis were filed by both parties in the presence of the court and, according to the consent pursis, Petitioner herein agreed to pay Rs 800/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs 200/- each to his two children. The order was passed in terms of the consent terms. Petitioner also deposited the amount in the Court after the consent terms were filed. However, respondents’ advocate was under the impression that the said order was no executable and applied for modification. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides gave a specific direction to the Petitioner to pay the said amount. Though the consent terms were filed and the order was passed thereon, no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if specific 3 (REVN 49/2001) direction was given to to the Petitioner to pay the said amount. 6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the said order dated 02/01/2001. In any event, the order was already passed in terms of the consent terms and, therefore, the said order was even otherwise executable. However, in this Petition, the Petitioner obtained an ad-interim order on 28/2/2001 which is still in operation. Even other wise the Petitioner, initially was directed to deposit an amount of Rs 5000/-. The said amount has been deposited. Hence, in my view, this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 7. Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Ad-interim order stands vacated. Respondents 1 to 3, however, are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs 5000/- deposited in this Court. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (REVN 49/2001)