* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2008 Vaishali P. Dhumal & Anr. ..... Applicants vs. Pundalik S. Dhumal & Anr. ..... Respondents Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr.R.R. Kalekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.J.R. Shinde, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2009. PC : 1 This Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14th February, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court partly allowing Criminal Revision Application preferred by the husband against the judgment and order in the proceeding under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code initiated by the applicant-wife. 2 The trial court vide judgment and order dated 20th February, 2007 allowed the application filed under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month for the applicant and Rs. 500/- per month to the child. The Sessions Court set aside the order awarding maintenance to the applicant and confirmed the maintenance to the child. * 2 * 3 Admittedly, the applicant had made a false statement in her application that she is illiterate lady. The evidence produced by the respondent showed that she is a graduate in Arts. She alleged in her petition that, she was constrained to leave the house of the respondent as the respondent neglected to provide a medical treatment to her when she was pregnant and because the respondent and his family members used to force her to take tranquilizers. 4 Perusal of the evidence shows that, there was no negligence on the part of the respondent in getting medical treatment for the applicant during the period of pregnancy. The cross examination of the applicant reveals that the respondent used to always accompany her to the Doctor. As far as the allegations of giving tranquilizers by the respondent and his family members to the applicant is concerned, there is not even so much as a suggestion to the respondent during his cross examination. Thus, the Sessions Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the applicant was failed to establish that she was forced to leave the house of the respondent or that there was any negligence on his part in maintaining her. 5 There is an additional reason for supporting the impugned order and that is admittedly during pendency of the present proceedings the applicant, in the month of January, 2009, * 3 * joined Police Force of Maharashtra and has been drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. Thus, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the respondent. Hence, Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.]