IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2417 OF 2007 Mr.Hanumant Shankar Waghmode .. Petitioner Vs. Sau.Seetabai @ Vandana Hanumant Waghmode .. Respondent Ms Kavita Pawar i/by Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for the petitioner. Mr.P.M.Jadhav for respondent no.1. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26th September 2008. : 26th September 2008. : 26th September 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Perused the record of the trial Court. 2. An application was made by the 1st respondent wife against the petitioner for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defence of the petitioner to the said application was that the 1st respondent was living in adultery with one Tatyaba Thombare. The said defence was accepted by the trial Court and the application was 2 dismissed. In the revision application filed by the 1st respondent, the Sessions Court has interfered and by the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.900/- per month from the date of filing the application. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case is not of a solitary instance of adulterous life led by the 1st respondent, but there is evidence on record to show that the 1st respondent is living in adultery and is continuously leading adulterous life. He submitted that there was no occasion for the Sessions Court to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate on this aspect. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, she submitted that the petitioner is a labourer and therefore maintenance amount fixed at Rs.900/- per month is on the higher side. 4. I have perused the record of the case. Perusal of the evidence shows that the petitioner has not examined any independent witness. He has examined himself as a witness to the alleged incident where the 1st respondent was found in compromising position with Tatyaba Thombare in a sugar-cane crop. The only other 3 witness examined by the petitioner is his father. There is no independent evidence adduced by the petitioner to show that the 1st respondent is living in adultery. That is the reason why the Sessions Court followed the view taken by this Court in the case of Prakash Patil Vs. Priti Patil [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2759] and held that only a solitary incident of adultery on the part of the wife will not disentitle the wife to claim maintenance and only on the basis of a solitary incident, a finding cannot be recorded that wife was living in adultery. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the finding recorded by the Sessions Court. 5. The submission of the petitioner is that maintenance of Rs.900/- per month is exorbitant. Perusal of the deposition of the petitioner shows that he has merely stated that he was doing labour work and he has to maintain his mother, father and two children. He has not disclosed his income. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that a labourer working in agricultural land gets Rs.100/- per day. Considering this aspect, maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- per month was fixed by the Sessions Court. It is difficult to find fault with the approach of the Sessions Court. 4 6. Hence, writ petition is rejected. However, time of six months is granted to the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance payable up to 30th September 2008. However, the petitioner will continue to pay current maintenance regularly. (A.S. Oka, J)