* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 369 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 387 OF 2008 Piyush Bhupendra Modi ....Applicant/Orig.Respondent Versus 1. Meena Piyush Modi 2. Ashay Piyush Modi 3. Jenam Piyush Modi .....Respondents/Orig.Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 4. State of Maharashtra .....Respondent no.4 ----------- Smt.Seema Sarnaik, advocate for applicant. Mr.Santosh H.Chari, advocate for respondent. Ms.S.V.Gajre, APP for State-respondent no.4. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 28TH JULY, 2009. * 2 * P.C. :- 1. The applicant husband seeks by this application refund of amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by him pursuant to the orders passed in Criminal Revision Application No.387 of 2008. The refund is sought in view of dismissal of the Revision Application. The application is opposed by the respondents no.1 to 3 who are his wife and children. 2. The Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicant was to challenge the order of the Family Court awarding maintenance to respondents no.1 to 3. At the time of filing of the application, the applicant was already in arrears of maintenance. Therefore, initially he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- and later on 3rd April, 2009 further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The applicant was able to comply with the first order but was unable to comply with the second, his application for extension of time to deposit the amount being rejected by this court. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application came to be dismissed. 3. Ms.Sarnaik, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicant is dismissed, he is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by him in the court. Since, the applicant is admittedly in arrears of payment of maintenance and execution * 3 * proceedings are already pending in the family court against him, interest of justice require that the amount is paid to respondents no.1 to 3. Ms.Sarnaik, points out that these respondents have not filed any application for withdrawal of the amount till date. Mr.Chari, the learned counsel for these respondents explains that the application was not filed in view of the talks of settlement going on between the parties. There is no dispute that talks of settlement were going on between the parties. The applicant also does not dispute his liability to pay maintenance atleast towards his children’s, respondents no.2 and 3. He however disputes his liability towards respondent no. 1, his wife. In the circumstances, the Criminal Application is dismissed. Respondent no.1 is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) deposited in the court towards the arrears of maintenance for herself and respondents no.2 and 3. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]