1 CRI.WP NO.989/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.989 of 2010 Babasaheb s/o Sarjerao Malode, Age: 27 years, Occu: Business, r/o Akhatwada, Tq.Khultabad, District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER (Orig.Defendant) VERSUS Sau.Shantabai w/o Babasaheb Malode, Age 25 years, Occu: Nil, r/o c/o. Jayvant Anand Mogal, Near Old Water Tank, Bazar Deogaon Rangari, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT (Orig.Applicant) ... Mr.P.V.Lange, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.S.P.Malode, Adv., for the respondent/sole (appointed) ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:11-3-2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- to the wife was questioned in revision before the learned District Judge at Aurangabad 2 CRI.WP NO.989/2010 where the husband faced its rejection and same is questioned in the present writ petition. 2. The marital status between the spouses is not in controversy. Since, in the year 2002, allegedly, the wife did not cohabit, proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act were initiated by the husband wherein learned Judge of the Family Court had recorded that the wife has kept herself away, without any reasonable cause. Based on such observation and the decree, wife has subsequently joined company of the husband, however, could not sail well, resulting in prosecution in terms of Section 498-A of IPC against the husband. The husband was put in fetters for certain period. 3. Learned Counsel for the husband, while criticizing the orders of the maintenance, reiterated, all efforts by the husband have been frustrated by the wife, only with a colour in mind that she is a graduate while the husband is educated upto IVth Standard. Learned Counsel further submits that wife is gainfully employed in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, M.S.R.T.C.) as a Conductor and receiving good yield of salary of Rs.10,000/- a month. 3 CRI.WP NO.989/2010 4. Before the learned Sessions Judge identical submissions were made. Learned Sessions Judge called the office of M.S.R.T.C. to produce record wherein it was informed that wife was getting Rs.53/- per day as a casual worker, based on availability of work, which suggested that there was no permanency to her job. As on today, there is nothing to illustrate that the wife is in employment with M.S.R.T.C. as a Conductor, as a permanent employee or drawing a huge salary as magnified by the learned Counsel for the husband. 5. At this stage of the matter, the husband is having sufficient means, apparently, neglected maintenance to his wife, she was harassed. It may be that she, on occasions, has behaved with domineering attitude, however, for that purpose, maintenance need not be refused. Consequently, the order under challenge does not speak of any perversity to call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The impugned orders are confirmed. Writ Petition dismissed. Liberty to the writ petitioner to agitate before appropriate forum, if evidence is collected of permanency to the wife with her employer (M.S.R.T.C.). (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/989-10crwp