DATTATRAYA S/O. RAMBHAU PAWAR Vs. SHARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard Mr. M.H. Shaikh holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Kale the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 finally.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned revisional Court dismissing his application for condonation of delay in preferring the Revision is erroneous in as much as, according to him, opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to submit his case through Revision. The said submission is vehemently opposed by Mr. M.P. Kale, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and submitted that the learned revisional Court was right in not exercising discretion in favour of the present petitioner for condoning the delay that occurred in filing the Criminal Revision Application.

(3.) The application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathri which was registered as Criminal Application No. 30/2009. The said application was allowed partly by the learned Magistrate vide Judgment and Order dated 19/10/2010, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- [ Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred] for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- [ Rupees One Thousand] to each of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 per month.