JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent. Heard both sides for final disposal, by consent.

2. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner essentially seeks to challenge three sets of orders. The first set of order is determining the maintenance amount, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents 1 to 3 dated 26th November, 1997. That order has been confirmed by the Revisional Court on 21st November, 1998. Subsequently, respondents 1 to 3 filed application for enhancement in terms of the amended provisions of the Code, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. The trial Court has accepted that request and enhanced the maintenance amount by order dated 17th May, 2000. This is the second set of order challenged in the present writ petition. The third set of orders challenged in this petition are, orders passed in derivative proceedings due to non-compliance of the maintenance orders passed by the Magistrate. All the three orders are passed on 29th May, 2000, but pertaining to defaults relating to different periods. In two orders, the punishment imposed is of twelve months imprisonment and in third order, punishment imposed is ten months imprisonment. Present petition has been filed sometime in March, 2001.

3. It is obvious that the petitioner has approached this Court only after the drastic order that was required to be passed by the Magistrate to ensure compliance of the earlier maintenance orders passed on two occasions. That happened on 29th May, 2000. Nonetheless, the present petition has been filed only in March, 2001. Assuming that the time taken by the petitioner in filing the present petition against the order dated 29th May, 2000 can be executed in the interest of justice, however, there is no tangible reason whatsoever available on record so as to give benefit to the petitioner to challenge the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate, which relates back to 26th November, 1997 and the enhancement order dated 17th May, 2000. The only excuse given by the petitioner can be discerned from paragraph 5 on page 21, which reads thus:

"The petitioner states that there is some delay in filing the present petition as regards certain orders and the petitioner has already explained hereinabove the circumstances in which the delay in filing the present petition took place. The petitioner states that due to paucity of funds he could not earlier file the present petition. The petitioner states that he has borrowed some amount from his friends for the purpose of filing this petition. The petitioner states that he has got very good case on merit of the matter. The petitioner states that in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove the delay in filing the present petition is required to be condoned in the interest of justice and kindness."

4. To my mind, it is not possible to accept the vague assertion made by the petitioner for the delay in challenging the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate on 26th November, 1997. To put it differently, the present petition is barred by latches and unexplained delay in challenging the order dated 26th November, 1997, which came to be confirmed by the Revisional Court on 21st November, 1998; whereas, the present petition has been filed in March, 2001. Needless to observe that the effect of non-suiting the petitioner with regard to challenge regarding maintenance order dated 26th November, 1997 is that the finding as recorded by the Magistrate regarding the factum of the lawful marriage between the parties and the entitlement of the respondents 1 to 3 for maintenance becomes final.

5. In that case, even if the petitioner was to be permitted to assail the order passed by the Magistrate dated May 17, 2000, enhancing the maintenance amount, the scope of argument will be limited to the justness of the enhancement granted by the Magistrate. On perusing the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document