sat 1 cri.wp 1293-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2010 Jayashri Kishor Sonawane & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Mr.Kishor Eknath Sonawane & Anr. ...Respondent Mr.N.R. Bubna with Ms.Manisha Salekar for the Petitioners. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 The petitioner no.1 is wife of respondent no.1 and the petitioner no.2 is minor son of respondent no.1 and petitioner no.1. The petitioners had submitted an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, for grant of maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. The said application was decided by the learned Magistate by passing the following order :- sat 2 cri.wp 1293-2010 1. Application is partly allowed. 2. The non-applicant shall pay Rs.1000/- (Rs.One Thousand only) per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs.400/- (Rs.Four Hundred only) per month to the applicant No.2, from the date of presentation of the instant maintenance application. 3. Non-applicant shall pay Rs.1500/- (Rs.One Thousand and Five hundred only) towards the expenses of this proceeding. 4. The non-applicant has paid the interim maintenance allowance of Rs.1000/- (Rs.One Thousand) for the applicant No.2 during the pendency of this proceeding, the said amount Rs.1000/- be deducted from the total outstanding amount of maintenance of applicant No.2 during the maintenance allowance recovery proceeding.” 2 The said order was challenged before the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon, District Nashik, in Criminal Revision Application No.58/2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned trial Magistrate by order dated 2nd September, 2009. The said sat 3 cri.wp 1293-2010 order runs as under :- 1. The revision petition is partly allowed. 2. The impugned order is confirmed. However, it is directed that the non applicant/revision petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant no.1 and Rs.400/- per month to applicant no.2 as maintenance from the date of order i.e. since 31-3-2009. 3. The rest of the order in Clauses 3, 4 & 5 are also maintained. 4. However, if any amount is paid by the revision petitioner, towards the maintenance in execution or directly, for the period before 31-3-2009 shall not be deducted or get refunded.” 3 It can be seen that the only modification in the order is in respect of effective date of maintenance. The learned Magistrate had granted maintenance from the date of presentation of the application. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not confirm the said order and directed that maintenance be paid from the date of order of the sat 4 cri.wp 1293-2010 Magistrate. 4 After having gone through the order of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, I have noted that no reasons have been recorded for modification of the order. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Sessions Judge can be reproduced as under :- “ In view of this, the entire order of maintenance is confirmed. However, it is modified to substitute that the maintenance would be paid from the date of the order. I do not find any error in granting the quantum of the maintenance. I, therefore, answer point no.1 accordingly and proceed to pass the following order.” 5 As such, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has not applied his mind and has just superficially decided the application. In my considered view, the order of the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. sat 5 cri.wp 1293-2010 6 Hence, the writ petition is allowed. 7 The order dated 2.09.2009 passed by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon, District-Nashik is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the J.M.F.C. Malegaon is restored. 9 Criminal Writ Petition No.1293 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)