1 CRI-539-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.539 OF 2011 Sindhu Ashok Shinde & ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Dhanashree @ Sampatti Prashant and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, for petitioners. Mr.Mahindra Deshmukh, for respondents. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 30 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mahindra Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 14 th October, 2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sangli below exhibit 5 in Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2010. The petitioners 2 CRI-539-11.sxw had preferred Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2010 challenging the judgment and order dated 2 nd September, 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Miraj in Misc. Application No.178 of 2010. By that order, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the application and ordered payment of maintenance to the first respondent. The learned Magistrate further restrained petitioner no.2 - husband from obstructing respondent nos.1 and 2 from residing in house bearing City Survey No.850/1, Y.B.Chougule Colony, Birje Panand, Kasba Bawda, Kolhapur. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. During the pendency of that appeal, they took out application exhibit 5 praying for stay of order dated 2 nd September, 2010 passed by the learned Magistrate. By impugned order dated 14 th October, 2010, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge granted conditional stay in so far as the amount of maintenance is concerned. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge granted time upto 28 th October, 2010 to the petitioners to deposit 50% of the arrears of maintenance and on depositing remaining 50% of the monthly maintenance on or before 5 th day of each month till further order. The learned Sessions Judge further ordered issuance of notice to respondent no.1 herein as to 3 CRI-539-11.sxw why the said order should not be confirmed. 3] It is not in dispute that order dated 14 th October, 2010 is ad- interim order and the petitioners' application at exhibit 5 is still pending in the Sessions Court. In these circumstances, I do not think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move the learned Sessions Judge for early disposal of application at exhibit 5. With this liberty, petition is dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]