1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2010 Vijay s/o. Govind Pawar, ....Applicant. Versus 1. Sow. Pushpa @ Manisha w/o. Vijay Pawar and others. ....Respondents. Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent No. 3/ State. CORAM: A. V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: 1st September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard for admission. 2. This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 3rd of June 2010 in Criminal Revision No. 235/2008. 3. The facts leading to the litigation are as under :­ The respondents moved an application under section 125, 2 Criminal Procedure Code against the applicant and demanded maintenance from him. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, are wife and son of the applicant. During the course of cross examination, the respondent No. 1 stated that she had been staying with her parents voluntarily. In view of this admission, the learned J.M.F.C. refused to order maintenance in favour of her. The respondent No. 1 then challenged this order before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the admission made by the respondent No. 1 was misread by the learned J.M.F.C., it could not have been used against her and such admission, in my view, also cannot be read without having context to her examination­in­chief. In her examination­in­chief, she made several allegations of illtreatment against the applicant, thereby suggesting that she could not stay with her husband because of his cruelty and illtreatment. 4. It is abundantly clear from her evidence, if we read it as a whole, that she left her husband’s house not willingly, but because she was harassed and subjected to cruelty. It has come on record that when she left her husband’s house, she was pregnant for about 8 months and soon after she reached her parents house, she delivered her second child – the respondent No. 2. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant went and requested the respondent No. 1 to come back. Even there is nothing on record to show that after the birth of his son, the applicant went to see him and his wife. The occasion certainly required him to go 3 and see the newborn. All these circumstances clearly show that the applicant neglected and refused to maintain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of this, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Criminal Revision application is, therefore, rejected. [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J.] ssc/cra165.10