1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 942 OF 2010 Uttam Sudam Panchmukh ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Pratibha Uttam Panchmukh and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. Pramod S. Gaikwad holding for Mr. A.G. Talhar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 7 th December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This Petition is filed by the husband challenging the order rendered by the Revisional Court on 27.07.2010, whereby the Criminal Revision Application No. 61 of 2006 preferred by him came to be dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Gaikwad holding for Mr. A.G. Talhar and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month was granted by the learned Magistrate to the respondent no.1 vide order dated 15.07.2006 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the record that the petitioner was found to have neglected and refused to 2 maintain the respondent no.1. It was also held by both the Courts that the petitioner is able bodied person, has got sufficient means in view of holding of agricultural lands by himself and his family members to the extent of 6 Hector 44 Ares. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequently the respondent no.1 has been divorced as per the decree rendered in H.M.P. No. 89 of 2007, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance allowance. 3. The contention of the petitioner is not well founded. Even the divorced wife is entitled to seek maintenance allowance until she remarry. If the respondent no.1 will remarry, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the maintenance order and for such purpose, he may apply to the learned Magistrate under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for variation/alteration/cancellation of the maintenance allowance. The learned Advocate would further submit that the separate maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- is granted by the Civil Court while allowing the divorce petition. That amount shall be, however, included in the maintenance allowance granted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of recovery as the allowance is granted for maintenance purpose though in different proceedings. Considering these aspects, there is no substantial reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment rendered by the 3 Revisional Court, particularly, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. In the result, the Petition is dismissed. 5. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/criwp942.10