RAVINDRA PARSHURAM KHIRIDversusSONALI RAVINDRA KHIRID AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43642


                                                                               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
                                                               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