Bombay High Court
RAHIMA LATIF SHAIKHversusABDUL LATIF SHAIKH AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed, and the Metropolitan Magistrate must decide the interim maintenance application within six weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Vaishali Anil, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the Metropolitan Magistrate's 65th Court, Andheri, to decide her interim maintenance application dated 30‑12‑2024, which had remained pending without order. The petitioner argued that the delay violated her right to timely relief, while the respondent contended that the magistrate's court was burdened with heavy work and should not be compelled to act within a fixed timeline. The High Court examined whether it could issue a directive to a lower trial court to expedite a pending interim application. Considering the undue delay, the Court held that it was appropriate to intervene to ensure speedy justice. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the magistrate to decide the maintenance application within six weeks of receiving the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a Metropolitan Magistrate to decide a pending interim maintenance application within a specified time frame
Subjects
- interim maintenance
- delay in adjudication
- direction to lower court
- high court intervention
- criminal writ petition
- metropolitan magistrate
Judgment
7-WP-2169-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2169 OF 2026
VAISHALI Rahima Latif Shaikh ...Petitioner/s
ANIL VERSUS
TIKAM
Abdul Latif Shaikh And Anr. ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
_________________________________________________________________
2026.09.07
13:48:53 +0530
Ms. Drishti Sanjay Khurana (thr. VC), Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Arote, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Smt. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 and
learned APP.
2. By this petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction to decide
the Petitioner's interim application dated 30/12/2024 pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate's 65th Court, at Andheri, Mumbai.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that
Petitioner's interim application for maintenance is pending since 2024,
but no order is passed on the said application and requested to allow the
Petition.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that the
Magistrate's Court is burdened with heavy work and the Court is hearing
Page 1 of 2
7-WP-2169-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
the matter as per its convenience and therefore, no need to direct the Trial
Court and requested to dismiss the Petition.
5. I have heard both learned counsel as interim maintenance
application of the applicant is pending since 30/12/2024, considering this
fact, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Metropolitan Magistrate's 65th Court at Andheri, Mumbai
shall decide the interim application dated 30/12/2024 for maintenance
filed by the Petitioner as early as possible, preferably, within six weeks on
its own merits after receipt of this orer.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…