2408cwp695.08.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2008 1. RAJESH S/O LAKSHAMANRAO VIRMALWAR .. Petitioner SOMNATH ROAD, MUL, CHANDRAPUR VERSUS 1. RASHMI W/O RAJESH VIRMALWAR & ANOR. PLOT NO. 320-A, LOKMANYA NAGAR, HINGNA ROAD, NAGPUR 2. MASTER ARPIT S/O RAJESH VIRMALWAR 320-A, LOKMANYA NAGAR, HINGNA ROAD, NAGPUR .. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. CV Mahurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. ST Dhurve, Advocate for the respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 24TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. :- 1. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Misc. Cri. Application No. 521 of 2006 was granted by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No. 9, Nagpur by ordering that petitioner should pay to respondents monthly maintenance Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 750/- respectively. This order came to be challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur in criminal revision application No. 514 of 2007. The revision came to be dismissed. Against these two orders, this petition is filed. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the income tax return filed by the petitioner goes to show that income of the petitioner is about Rs. 40,000/- per year, and therefore, the maintenance granted is on higher side. 2408cwp695.08.odt 2/3 He also submitted that respondent No. 1 admitted in her cross examination that the petitioner has to take care of his parents and that is how according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, some amount is required to be spent for the parents. According to him, this factor ought to have been considered by the Courts below while granting the maintenance. He had also submitted that according to respondent No.1 because, sister of the petitioner was staying with the petitioner, there used to be quarrels and i.e. how she was required to stay away. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, separate arrangements have been made, and therefore, there is no reason for respondent No. 1 to stay away from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed against respondent No. 1 and the said petition is pending. 3. Learned Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2 opposed submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner ans supported the impugned orders. 4. Even if the word of the petitioner that his income is Rs. 40,000/- per year based on the income tax return is accepted, still the word of the petitioner that he has to spend money for his parents is not proved by the petitioner. A bare statement made by the petitioner, though confirmed by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has to spend money for his parents, is of no use to the petitioner. In my view, it was necessary for the petitioner to give specific evidence as to what was his father doing, whether he had any independent source of income and as to what amount he has to spend towards the maintenance of his parents. In absence of this evidence, mere admission of respondent No. 1 and assertion of the same by the petitioner that he may be 2408cwp695.08.odt 3/3 required to take care of his father, cannot be accepted. In my view, no intervention is required as the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has arrived at a reasonable figure of maintenance with reference to the needs of respondents No. 1 & 2. Learned Advocate for the respondents has pointed out that respondent No. 1 has not filed any application for maintenance in the petition for constitution of conjugal rights. In my view, the petition need not be admitted. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE wwl