1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6307 OF 2008 Ram Laxman Shinde .. PETITIONER VERSUS Pramila Ram Shinde .. RESPONDENT Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Z.M. Pathan, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner herein is raising exception to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Shrirampur on 10-6-2008 below application exh. 1 in HMP no. 36/2000 thereby directing dismissal of the petition on account of avoidance of the petitioner to pay the amount towards interim alimony. On consideration of the application presented by respondent no. 5, trial court directed the petitioner to deposit interim alimony at the rate of Rs.900/- per month in view of order passed on 7-7-2003. Inspite of passing of the order, the petitioner has not deposited any amount towards interim alimony. 2 Several chances were granted to the petitioner however, he failed to pay the amount on one pretext or the other. Trial court passed order on 22-4-2008 directing the petitioner to comply with the order forthwith and warned of action against him under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was taken up for consideration on 10-6-2008. However, the petitioner or his counsel remained absent. As such, trial court was compelled to direct dismissal of petition under provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner contends that the proceedings are protracted at the instance of respondent / wife and he should not be saddled with liability of payment of interim alimony. Contention of payment raised by the petitioner / husband is opposed by respondent / wife by presenting affidavit in reply. It has been stated in the affidavit in reply that the petitioner had married third times and he is staying with third wife. It is stated that the petitioner has issues born out of wedlock with one Asha as well as Swati. It is also stated in reply that criminal complaint bearing no. 43/2006 is presented against the petitioner in respect of commission of offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is pending before the trial court. Petitioner did not cause his appearance in the proceeding and a such the criminal case remains pending. There were similar proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 125 of the 3 Code of Criminal Procedure and he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. However, petitioner has not yet paid anything towards maintenance amount. It is also brought to the notice that there is complaint presented under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and on account of failure of the petitioner to appear before the criminal court, non-bailable warrant is issued against him. Inspite of issuance of non- bailable warrant, the petitioner has not caused his appearance before the criminal court. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that he does not deserve any relief from this court. The petitioner is willfully avoiding to pay amount towards interim alimony to the respondent wife. In this situation, no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance, hence rejected. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6307.08.odt