1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.911 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Advocate Shri V.Y.Patil for the petitioner and Smt. B.R.Khekale, learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raver, District Jalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.103 of 2003 decided on 4.3.2006, whereby maintenance of Rs.1000/= is awarded to Respondent No.1, which order is further confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Criminal Revision Application No.36 of 2008 decided on 8.6.2009. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner- husband referred to certain documents produced with the petition i.e. (i) 2 statement of the petitioner before Mahila Dakshata Kaksha, Jalgaon and (ii) statement of Respondent-wife recorded by Police Insptector, Local Crime Branch, Jalgaon on 22.1.2009. Learned Advocate submitted that present petitioner has stated in his said statement that he is ready and willing to take his wife, whereas wife in her statement before police apprehended threat to her life. 4. After going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate, it is clear that he is has considered above aspect in details and has come to the conclusion that there was cruelty to Respondent no.1 at the hands of petitioner which compelled her to leave the house of husband and live with her parents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to admission by Respondent No.1 that she was doing labour work as there is no other source of income. This aspect is also considered by learned Magistrate in details in paragraph 8 onwards. Learned Magistrate also relied upon the case of Revatibai vs. Jageshwar, 1991 Cri.L.J.40. Present Petitioner as per his salary certificates, was getting about 3 Rs.6000/= per month after all deductions and it is also considered that since there was no other source of income, Respondent No.1 was doing labour work and there was no evidence to show that she was getting sufficient income to maintain herself. 6. After going through judgment of the trial court and of Sessions Court, the view taken by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be a reasonable view and does not call for any interference. 7. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed. Date:03/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criwp911.09