Bombay High Court
VITTHAL TUKARAM KAPSEversusGEETA VITTHAL KAPSE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as it was filed beyond the reasonable period of three years and lacks sufficient grounds for relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Vitthal Tukaram Kapse, filed a criminal writ petition on 8 June 2026 challenging an order dated 4 January 2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, which had allowed condonation of delay in a maintenance application on the condition that 25% of the maintenance amount be deposited within 20 days. The petition was filed more than three years after the impugned order, and the petitioner offered no cogent reason for the delay. The court noted that although no statutory limitation period exists for writ petitions, jurisprudence recognizes a reasonable period of three years for such filings. It further observed that the petitioner had not demonstrated that any maintenance amount had been paid to the respondent, Geeta Vitthal Kapse. Considering the undue delay and lack of substantive grounds, the court held that the petition was not fit for adjudication. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition filed more than three years after the impugned order can be entertained in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief challenging the order of condonation of delay and the condition of depositing 25% of maintenance.
Subjects
- writ petition
- limitation period
- maintenance
- condonation of delay
- High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23675
910-WP-802-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2026
Vitthal Tukaram Kapse
VERSUS
Geeta Vitthal Kapse And Others
...
Mr. M L Dharashive, Advocate for the Petitioner
...
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : JUNE 17, 2026
PC :
1. This Petition is filed on 08.06.2026 taking exception to order
dated 04.01.2023 passed in Criminal M. A. No. 12/2022 whereby learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir allowed the application for condonation of
delay with condition that 25% of amount of maintenance be deposited
within 20 days of order.
2. This Petition is filed after three years of passing of impugned
order. There is no dispute about the fact that on the Application filed by the
Petitioner the said order came to be passed after hearing the Petitioner.
Thus, it is not the case wherein the Petitioner had no knowledge of the said
order.
3. Though there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing Writ
Petition, it is settled position of law that reasonable period should be
considered of three years. This Petition is admittedly filed after three years
Page 1 of 2
910-WP-802-2026.odt
without showing cogent reasons for delay. Apart from the fact that there is
delay in filing present Petition, conduct of the Petitioner also disentitles
entertainment of this Petition. There is nothing on record to show that any
amount as per order passed by Competent Court for payment of
maintenance has been paid to wife.
4. All these circumstances indicates that this is not a fit case to
entertain the Petition after a period of three years. Hence, Writ Petition
stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…