Bombay High Court

JITENDRA DHUMEversusVIDYA DHUME

Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: AMIT S JAMSANDEKAR

Holding

The magistrate’s order is valid and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard Criminal Writ Petition No.58 of 2023 filed by Jitendra Dhume challenging a magistrate’s order directing him to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation, monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 and to provide accommodation to Vidya Dhume. The petitioner’s counsel, appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme, repeatedly reported that the petitioner could not be located despite several attempts, a situation also noted by a previous legal‑aid advocate. The respondent contended that the petitioner had failed to comply with the magistrate’s order. The Court examined the magistrate’s order and found no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness and held that the award of compensation and maintenance was justified. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as having no merit. The petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the magistrate’s order for compensation, maintenance and accommodation is legally valid
Whether the writ petition can be entertained given the petitioner’s untraceability and non‑compliance

Subjects

criminal writ petition
compensation
maintenance
legal aid
non‑compliance
order dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1140
                                               12 WPCR 58 2023

                vinita

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.58 OF 2023

           JITENDRA DHUME                                          ... PETITIONER
              Versus
           VIDYA DHUME                                             ... RESPONDENT


           Mr Tarun Rebello, Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme for the
           Petitioner.
           Mr. Vinod Korgaonkar and Mr ONkar Asolkar, Advocates for
           the Respondent through VC.


                                    CORAM:- AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
                                    DATED :- 17th June, 2026

           P.C.
                   Heard Mr. Rebello, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
           2      Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who has been appointed under
           the Legal Aid Scheme, submits that despite making several attempts to
           contact the Petitioner, the Petitioner remains untraceable.
           3.            In fact, the earlier Advocate appointed under the Legal Aid
           Scheme had also made a similar statement before this Court on
           08.10.2024, which has been recorded in the order of the said date.
           4.      Thereafter, the said Advocate sought discharge from the matter
           and, accordingly, by order dated 23.04.2026, the Goa State Legal
           Services Authority was directed to appoint another Advocate to
           represent the Petitioner.
           5.            Pursuant thereto, the Goa State Legal Services Authority


                                                  Page 1 of 2
                                                 17th June, 2026
                                                           12 WPCR 58 2023


                       appointed a new Advocate for the Petitioner. However, even today, the
                       situation remains unchanged, and the Petitioner continues to be
                       untraceable.
                       6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner has
                       failed to comply with the order passed by the learned Magistrate,
                       whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of
                       Rs.2,00,000/-, maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, and to provide
                       accommodation to the Respondent.
                       7.        Thus, there is admittedly no compliance with the order passed by
                       the learned Magistrate.
                       8.         I have perused the impugned order, and I am satisfied that the
                       same does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness.
                       9.           Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
                       compensation awarded, the maintenance directed to be paid to the
                       Respondent, and the other reliefs granted by the learned Magistrate are
                       fully justified.
                       10.       In view of the above, I find no merit in the present Petition. The
                       Petition is accordingly dismissed.
                       11.       The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.



                                                                  AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.




Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
                                                              Page 2 of 2
Date: 17/06/2026 16:50:12
                                                             17th June, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…