1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. /2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.588/2009 (D) Sou. Sandhya w/o Manoj Wankhade ...Versus... Manoj s/o Bhimrao Wankhade and others ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ [Ms T.H. Udeshi, Adv. with applicant] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 12.04.2010 Office to register this Criminal Application. Leave to amend. Issue notice on this criminal application returnable on 26.04.2010. Hamdast allowed. At 2:30 p.m., learned Counsel for applicant mentions this matter, stating that copy of this application was offered to Advocate Shri S.J. Kadu appearing for contesting respondent No.2 with further intimation that the matter will be mentioned today at 2:30 p.m., but he declined to accept the copy on the ground that he has no instructions. She further states that the time granted by this Court to vacate the residential premises occupied by the applicant expired on 10.04.2010 and there is likelihood of she being driven out of the house with articles belonging to her. She then submits that an amount of Rs.9,000/- was required to be paid to the applicant well in advance before 10.04.2010 so also an amount of Rs.2,500/- including rent of Rs.1,000/-. She has not received these two 2 amounts i.e. Rs.9,000/- and Rs.2,500/- on or before 10.04.2010. However, she is being threatened to be ousted from the residence occupied by her. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that she has filed special leave petition bearing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 2854/2010 in the Supreme Court against the operative part No.(iii) of the judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2010. Reading of the judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2010, in particular paragraph No.8, shows that the amount of Rs.9,000/- so also amount of Rs.2,500/- was required to be cleared on or before 10.04.2010. Since learned Counsel for the applicant states that these amounts have not been paid, she cannot be asked to vacate the house without sufficient monetary protection, extended by this Court and as agreed by respondent No.2 when the judgment and order was made. All statements made by learned Counsel for the applicant are accepted and in view of the urgency in the matter, presently time from 10.04.2010 is extended till 26.04.2010 midnight. JUDGE ssw