1 CRI.REVN.APP.NO.260/1999. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.260 OF 1999. Syed.Ismail s/o Syed Kondan, Age: 31 years, Occ: Driver, r/o: Sajapur (P.S., M.I.D.C.Waluj), Aurangbad. ...Applicant. (Ori. Respondent) Versus 1. Sultan Bee wife of Syed Ismail (Now divorcee), age: 26 years, Occ: Labour, d/o: Shaikh Bashir s/o Shaikh Ahmed r/o Sajapur. 2. Aleem s/o Syed Ismail, Age: 5 years, Occ: (deleted as no maintenance was granted in the impugned Judgment) 3. Salim (paternity not known) son of Sultanbee Minor u/g of his real mother Sultan bee ex-wife of Syed.Ismail and d/o Shaikh Bashir s/o Sk.Ahmed r/o Sajapur i.e. Respondent No.1. ...Respondents. (Ori. petitioners.) 2 CRI.REVN.APP.NO.260/1999. ... Mr.Y.M.Khan, Advocate h/f Mr.K.G.Khader, Advocate for the applicant/original respondent. Respondents No.1 & 3/Original petitioners-Absent. Name of respondent No.2 deleted. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 26th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 27th May, 1999, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, directing the applicant to pay maintenance to the respondents, who were his wife and children, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. 2. The respondent No.1 made application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance for herself and her two minor children. During the pendency of the application, respondent No.2 went to stay with the applicant/father and so his name is deleted. The case of the respondent/wife was that during seven years of marriage with the applicant, she delivered one son. In February, 1997, the 3 CRI.REVN.APP.NO.260/1999. applicant pronounced divorce to her. They got separated for few days. On 17th March, 1997, the applicant again got married to her. She produced on record a “Nikahanama”. Thereafter, she got pregnant and during her pregnancy the applicant/husband drove her away from his house. 3. The application for maintenance was made when the petitioner No.3 was only five months old. The applicant opposed the application saying that after the divorce that took place in February, 1997, he had no concern with respondent No.1. He also stated that he did not marry her in February, 1997 and so he was not father of the respondent No.3. 4. Learned Judge of the Family Court, however, held on the basis of “Nikahanama”, the respondent No.1 had produced on record that she had proved that he got married again to the applicant. The learned Judge rightly held that in view of the stand taken by the applicant denying paternity etc. he clearly indicted that he had refused to maintain his wife and children. The application was , therefore, allowed. 4 CRI.REVN.APP.NO.260/1999. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant tried to suggest that the alleged marriage that took place in March, 1997 was not permissible under Muslim Law and so it was void. I think, this objection is hardly relevant to the question involved. The respondent No.1 sufficiently proved that the applicant had access to her and she begot the second son. Whether the second marriage was valid according to the Muslim Law was never the question between the parties. The lower court appreciated the facts of the case properly. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The Revision Application stands dismissed. . Rule is discharged. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.