1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Revision No. 13/2009 ( Eknath Ramaji Talekar .vs. State of Mah. and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mrs. Arehana Nair, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED : OCTOBER 21, 2010 The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The said appeal was preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner in Misc. Criminal Application No.32/2007. By that order, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.700/- per month to respondent no.2 herein-wife and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3 herein – son towards the maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 22.2.2007. Heard Mrs. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner is suffering 2 from Manic depressive psychosis from 30.10.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does nothing and, therefore, is unable to pay the maintenance. I do not find any substance in this contention. In the first place, no such case was made out in the Courts below. Secondly, the Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have awarded the maintenance to respondent no.2-wife at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and respondent no.3-son at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It is also not in dispute that right from 22.2.2007 till date, the petitioner has not paid any maintenance to respondents no.2 and 3. No case whatsoever is made out for invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed. Hence the revision is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Court below by pointing out the medical certificate on which reliance is sought to be placed for the first time in this Court by examining the doctor. This will be of course subject to all the available objections to the respondents no.2 and 3 including maintainability of any such proceeding. With this observation, the revision is dismissed. JUDGE halwai