SAIYYAD ASHFAQUE AHMAD SAIYYAD ISMAIL v. NAJMUS SAHER @ NAUSHIN

NAJMUS SAHER @ NAUSHIN W/O SAIYYAD ASHFAQUE AHMAD & 4 ORS. R/O C/O MIR VIZARAT ALI MIR SHUJAT ALI, BHAGYASHRI COLONY CAMP,AMRAVATI

HUMERA AFRIN SAIYYAD ASHFAQUE AHMAD C/O MIR VIZARAT ALI MIR SHUJAT ALI, BHAGYASHRI COL COLONY CAMP AMRAVATI

FARHAN SAIYYAD ASHFAQUE AHMAD C/O MIR VIZARAT ALI MIR SHUJAT ALI, BHAGYASHRI COLONY CAMP, AMRAVATI

SAMREEN SAIYYAD ASHFAQUE AHMAD C/O MIR VIZARAT ALI MIR SHUJAT ALI, BHAGYASHRI COL CAMP, AMRAVATI

THE STATE OF MAH .. RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. C. S. Kaptan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. D. M. Kale, A. P. P. for respondent No. 5-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 20TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. :

1. Respondent No. 1 had filed an application (Exh. 23) against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the proceedings being Misc. Criminal Application No. 188 of 2008 which came to be granted by order dated 04/7/2008 by the 2008cwp672.08.odt learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Judge). The learned trial Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to wife-respondent No. 1 and Rs. 800/- (together) to respondents No. 2 to 4 being children of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged said order dated 04/7/2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati by judgment and order dated 17/9/2008 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, this petition challenging both the proceedings came to be filed in this Court in October, 2008.

2. Today as the matter was called out, learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out to this Court an application at Exh. 91 came to be filed before the learned trial Judge for modification of order dated 04/7/2008. He further pointed out that learned trial Judge passed order on 17/12/2008 below Exh. 91 and ordered that petitioner should pay Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No. 1 till disposal of the case by way of interim maintenance. He also ordered that petitioners should pay to respondents No. 2 to 4 herein a sum of Rs. 8,000/- each.

3. Order dated 17/12/2008 will clearly mean that a new order is passed against the petitioner. If this is so, it will be necessary for the petitioner to challenge this oder dated 17/12/2008 before appropriate forum, and therefore, it is not now necessary for this Court to go into the question whether order dated 17/9/2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati as well as order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 04//7/2008 are correct or otherwise. The petitioners will have to challenge order dated 17/12/2008 as aforesaid. In view of this, the petition has become infructuous.