1 672.11-apl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2011 Shri Namdev Mane. ... Applicant. V/s. Mrs.Sakhubai Namdev Mane and another. ... Respondents. Rahul Arote for the applicant. H.G.Wakshe for respondent No.1. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 12th August 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By way of present application, the applicant challenges the order dated 30th June 2011 as well as order dated 20th September 2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in C.C.No.1/DV/2009 and prays for grant of three months time to deposit the amount of Rs.84,000/-. 3. The applicant and the respondent No.1 were married to each other. Out of the said wed-lock they have two children. It is the case of the applicant that respondent No.1, after cohabiting with the applicant almost 2 672.11-apl for seven years, left the matrimonial home along with two minor children and went to reside with her parents. Respondent No.1 filed application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon. The Magistrate vide order dated 28th May 2009 has directed maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. The applicant challenged the said order before learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision. Since the applicant did not pay the amount of maintenance a warrant of attachment came to be passed by learned Magistrate. The applicant applied for revocation of the said attachment warrant. However, learned Magistrate issued arrest warrant vide order dated 2nd July 2011. The applicant filed an application for cancellation of the said warrant. The learned Magistrate has granted stay to the arrest warrant, subject to the deposit of 50% of the arrears i.e. Rs. 84,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has deposited Rs.84,000/-. Now the question that remains is regarding the payment of balance of arrears in the sum of Rs.84,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that taking into consideration the financial condition of the applicant, it is not possible to deposit entire balance amount of arrears at one time. He, however, submits that if sufficient time is granted, he will clear the entire amount of arrears. The applicant has filed undertaking stating therein that he will deposit Rs.25,000/- per month in the Court of learned Magistrate. The undertaking is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. The same be treated and undertaking to this Court. 5. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 30th June 2011 as well as order dated 2nd July 2011 are quashed and set aside. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- per month with the Court of learned Magistrate till the entire arrears are cleared. It is further directed that till the main application is decided by the learned Magistrate, the applicant shall 3 672.11-apl continue to pay amount of maintenance even after the arrears are cleared at the rate determined by learned Magistrate. 6. Since the applicant has shown his bonafides, the order passed by learned Magistrate thereby closing the evidence of the applicant is also quashed and set aside. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said application within a period of six months from today. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)