{1} CWP No.95/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2011 Ansar s/o Subhan Khan Pathan PETITIONER Age-40 years, Occ-Labourer R/o Balanagar, Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad VERSUS 1. Noorjahan w/o Amar Khan RESPONDENTS Age-30 years, Occ-Labourer R/o At present Thergaon, Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad 2. The State of Maharashtra ....... Mr.Sushant S.Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.M.G.Mustafa, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 23 rd August 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the judgment and order dated 12.05.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.165/2009 by {2} CWP No.95/2011 which the order passed by JMFC, Paithan in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.31/2009 came to be modified. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Few facts, which gave rise to file the present petition, may briefly be stated thus - The petitioner and respondent No.1 are husband and wife and they are Mohemedan by religion. The couple was blessed with three children including one son and two daughters. Respondent No.1 has alleged that initially, after her marriage, their relations were cordial, however, subsequently she was driven out of her matrimonial house by the petitioner. Respondent No.1, thereafter had filed an application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance, before JMFC, Paithan, however, prior to that a complaint was lodged with MIDC police station Paithan, against the petitioner for an offence punishable u/s 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned JMFC, Paithan, vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2009, had partly allowed the maintenance application and granted maintenance of Rs.500/- to the two minor sons till they attain majority, however, dismissed the maintenance application of respondent No.1. It further appears that the said order of rejection of maintenance to respondent No.1, was {3} CWP No.95/2011 challenged before Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by filing Criminal Revision Application No.165/2009. Learned Revisional Court quashed the order passed by JMFC to the extent it refuses maintenance to respondent No.1 and granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No.1, which order is impugned in the present petition. 4. In writ petition, scope of inquiry is very limited only to the extent to see as to whether any illegality is committed by the revisional court or not while allowing the revision application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that learned JMFC has clearly observed that respondent No.1 has left the house of the petitioner and residing with her parents without any reasons and hence it cannot be said that the petitioner husband has refused and neglected to maintain her. It is further urged that the petitioner had also issued notice to the respondent No.1 calling on her to cohabit with him, however, respondent No.1 did not give any response to the same. It is further urged that the evidence of Sampat Korde, a witness examined on behalf of the petitioner, has clearly established that the petitioner had made attempts to bring back respondent No.1 for cohabitation. However, the impugned judgment clearly establish that there is variance in the evidence of said Sampat Korde and the evidence of the petitioner himself and hence, the evidence of said Sampat has been rightly discarded by the revisional court. Though the petitioner had {4} CWP No.95/2011 sent some notices to respondent No.1, yet it appears that no further steps are taken by him for brining respondent No.1 for cohabitation by filing suit for restitution of conjugal rights. In the premise, the observations of the Revisional Court cannot be faulted with that the notices issued by the petitioner are nothing but a melodrama to defeat her claim of maintenance. It is further observed by the Revisional Court that respondent No.1 is an illiterate lady and she cannot approach the authorities independently and hence it cannot be inferred that she had neglected to reside and cohabit with the petitioner. Evidence on record clearly demonstrate that respondent No.1 was driven out of her house by the petitioner and it is also alleged that she had stolen certain articles. Therefore, the Revisional Court has observed that making wild allegations of theft without proof amounts to cruelty towards the wife. It is also an admitted fact that during the stay of respondent No.1 at her parents house the petitioner had came there and had assaulted respondent No.1 so also to her parents, which resulted into filing of a complaint at Crime No.27/2008. Considering these facts, it cannot be said that the Revisional Court has committed any error in the impugned judgment. In the premise, the submissions of the petitioner need to be negatived. 6. It is specifically observed in the impugned order that the petitioner is not only an agricultural labour but he also owns an agricultural land and hence the revisional court had granted an {5} CWP No.95/2011 amount of Rs.500/- towards maintenance to respondent No.1. Considering all the aspects discussed above and in view of the fact that a very meager amount has been granted towards maintenance to respondent No.1 and considering the earning capacity of the petitioner, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. Consequently, the writ petition, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Parties are direct to bear their own costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/cwp95-11