27.26revn (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 931 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2026 RAVINDRA PARSHURAM KHIRID VERSUS SONALI RAVINDRA KHIRID AND OTHERS ….. Mr Amol R. Joshi, Advocate for Applicant Mr D. R. Markad, Advocate for Respondent No.1 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr Joshi for applicant and Mr Markad, learned Advocate for respondent No.1. 2. The applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 10/11/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar below Exh.1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.213/2023. Vide the said order the application for condonation of delay, caused in filing appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) came to be rejected. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that respondent No.1/wife had filed the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ahmednagar under the 2026:BHC-AUG:43642 27.26revn (2) PWDVA in the month of December 2020 bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.1085/2020. Alongwith the said proceedings, respondent/wife had also filed application at Exh.5 for interim maintenance. Learned JMFC vide order dated 02/02/2023 allowed application at Exh.5 and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. He further submits that, since the applicant was not aware of the said order, the delay is caused in filing appeal under Section 29 of the PWDVA Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Resultantly, he filed appeal under Section 29 of the PWDVA Act alongwith the delay application bearing Crim.M.A. No.213/2023 on 04/11/2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court, vide its order dated 10/11/2025, which is impugned in this matter, rejected the application for condonation of delay. Hence, the applicant has approached this Court by challenging the said order, by way of this revision application. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant, in his application for condonation of delay, had stated that the marriage between applicant and respondent No.1/wife was solemnized on 14/05/2019 at Ahmednagar. In view of dispute between them, respondent No.1/wife started staying at her maternal home and 27.26revn (3) thereafter she had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.1085/2020 alongwith application at Exh.5 for interim maintenance. The learned JMFC allowed said application by granting Rs.5,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance vide order dated 02/02/2023. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant then submits that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02/02/2023, the applicant had filed appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay of nine months for filing appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. He had stated in the application for condonation of delay that he was not aware about passing of the said order. He had also stated in his application that his mother was suffering from illness due to paralysis. His father was also suffering from blood pressure and he was to look after his parents, and therefore, he could not file appeal within limitation. He had applied for certified copy of the order dated 02/02/2023, passed by the learned JMFC, which received by him on 07/10/2023. Learned Advocate for the applicant, therefore, submits that the learned Sessions Court was required to consider that the applicant had explained the delay in proper manner and ought not to have rejected the application for condonation of delay. He further submits that the learned Sessions Court was required to decide the application liberally. He then submits that the matter possesses 27.26revn (4) substantial merit and that the learned Session’s Court failure to grant an opportunity to applicant of being heard, has caused him serious prejudice. He further submits that the learned Sessions Court was required to allow his application for condonation of delay by taking liberal approach. He, therefore, prays for allowing this revision application. 6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr Markad for respondent No.1/wife strongly opposes the instant revision application. He submits that the learned Sessions Court has passed the reasoned order, thereby observing that the applicant/husband has not explained the delay in his application for condonation of delay. He further submits that, in absence of sufficient cause for the delay, the application was rightly rejected by applying correct principles of law. As the impugned order is based on a sound legal proposition, this revision application deserves to be dismissed. He also invites attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order, wherein the learned Sessions Court, by going through the various authorities, observed that principles governing the delay condonation application had been duly applied. Consequently, he submits that the impugned order is legally correct. He, therefore prays for dismissal of instant criminal revision application. 27.26revn (5) 7. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I have perused the record. Apparently, there is delay of nine months in preferring appeal challenging the order passed by the learned JMFC, dated 02/02/2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Court. Vide the said order, the applicant/husband has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance to respondent No.1/wife. Applicant/husband, by way of an appeal, challenged the said order before the learned Sessions Court. Since his parents were suffering from illness, he was required to attend them. Therefore, as he could not prefer appeal within limitation, the delay of nine months occurred. Since, he could not engage a lawyer, he was unaware that the impugned order had been passed. Statements made by the applicant in the application preferred by him for condoning the delay are acceptable. The delay application was required to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Court, by taking liberal approach. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant can be permitted to challenge the order dated 02/02/2023, passed by the learned JMFC, granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- pm. to respondent No.1/wife, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed. The order dated 10/11/2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions 27.26revn (6) Judge, Ahmednagar is hereby quashed and set aside. Delay for preferring appeal under Section 29 of the PWDVA is condoned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to register the appeal under Section 29 of the PWDVA, challenging the order of learned JMFC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge is also directed to decide the appeal of the present applicant within a period of three months. 9. This criminal revision application is disposed of. 10. At this stage, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/wife submits that, in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 17/08/2026, the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards outstanding amount of interim maintenance before this Court. He prays that the said amount may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/wife. Accordingly, respondent/wife is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the applicant before this Court. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk