Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11717 (BOM)

DNYANDEO RAMBHAU JAIBHAY v. MANISHA W/O DNYANDEO JAIBHAY AND OTHERS

REVN/29/2024 · 2026-09-23

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 962 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2024 DNYANDEO RAMBHAU JAIBHAY VERSUS MANISHA W/O DNYANDEO JAIBHAY AND OTHERS Mr.A.R.Hange, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.N.R.Thorat, Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 3. ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This Court, vide order dated 12.08.2026, stayed the impugned judgment and orders dated 06.04.2021 and 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Beed in Petition No.E-14 of 2020 subject to deposit of 50% of the outstanding amount. The said outstanding amount was directed to be deposited within a period of 3 months from the date of the order dated 12.08.2026. 2. On 02.09.2026, the aforesaid order came to be modified. Despite passing a detailed order, observing that the wife and children of the applicant are suffering from various difficulties and they are unable to maintain themselves in order to meet their basic needs. Therefore, khs/Sept.2026/29 2026:BHC-AUG:43884 - 2 - the Applicant is directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 2 weeks in order to show his bonafides. 3. Today, the learned Advocate Mr.Hange submits that the Applicant has not deposited the aforesaid amount as directed by this Court, though he has communicated this order to the Applicant. Since the impugned orders were passed on 06.04.2021 and 14.12.2023, the matter was heard for the first time before this Court. Since the total amount of arrears of maintenance is around Rs.10,63,000/- and there being no efforts made on behalf of the Applicant till date to deposit the amount as directed, this Court is of the opinion that the Applicant is not entitled for the interim relief as regards staying the effect and operation of the impugned orders. 4. Today also there is no request on behalf of the Applicant that some more time be granted to him to deposit the amount. In that view of the matter, the instant revision application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Sept.2026/29