AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.
1 Heard Shri Adeshra, learned advocate for the applicants. Rule. Learned advocates for the Respondents waive service of notice of rule. Rule is fixed forthwith with the consent of the advocates for the parties.
2 This application is taken out for following prayers:
(A) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to extend the stay by ordering / directing the Petitioner wife (Respondent herein) that the complaint may not be proceeded with for a period up to 7/10/2011, in the interest of justice.
(B) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to grant any such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.
In the judgment dated 12/5/2011 in Special Criminal Application No. 966 of 2010, the relevant portion is set out as under:
Learned advocate for the private Respondents at this stage requested that this order may be stayed so as to allow the Respondents to move the Apex Court. Learned advocate further submitted that by virtue of this order the other side will go ahead with the complaint and therefore let there be stay against prosecuting the complaint. This request is accepted and it is expected that the complaint may not be proceeded with by the Petitioner-wife for a period up to 7/9/2011. This staying will not be in any manner affect the right of wife to file appropriate proceedings for realizing the arrears of maintenance amount which is said to have been withheld till date despite of the interim order. It is made clear that, only further proceedings of the complaint are stayed but any application by Petitioner wife for enforcement of the interim order, complaining any breach thereof shall be permitted to be proceeded with by learned Magistrate.
Learned advocate for the applicants has prayed that the complaint may not be proceeded for further period of one month from 7/9/2011, to which learned advocate for Respondent No. 2 has objected on various grounds, including the ground of non-payment of arrears of maintenance. In my view, what is not to be proceeded is complaint and when the order dated 12/5/2011 is sought to be challenged, in all fairness the objection is required to be overruled. The time is required to be extended accordingly. The complaint may not be proceeded up to 7/10/2010 as prayed for. Present application is thus disposed of in above terms. Rule made absolute to the said extent.
It is already clarified in the earlier order dated 12/5/2011 that only further proceeding of complaint is stayed and original Petitioner''s (wife''s) application for enforcement of interim order is not stayed.