IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 801 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 801 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 801 OF 2005 Shri Sanjay Ganpati Ghorpade. ...Petitioner V/s. Sou.Suhasini Sanjay Ghorpade & Anr. ...Respondents Shri Vijay Killedar for Petitioner. Shri Rupesh Bobade i/b. Shri Bhushan A. Walimbe for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri P.A. Pal, APP for State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : AUGUST 2, 2006 DATED : AUGUST 2, 2006 DATED : AUGUST 2, 2006 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Islampur who was pleased to award maintenance to the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred the revision application before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. His revision application was also dismissed. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the - 2 - petitioner that the respondent had left the matrimonial house and there was no wilful refusal or neglect on his part to maintain her. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the order was passed in his favour. It is submitted that both the Courts below have not taken into consideration that the petitioner was paying the loan which was taken by his father and out of his total salary, he was receiving an amount of Rs.1000/-. It was submitted that therefore, the order passed by both the Courts below was liable to be set aside. 4. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Both the Courts have given concurrent finding that that there was wilful neglect on the part of the petitioner to maintain his wife. The Court has also taken into consideration that the respondent-wife was unable to maintain her. These two requirements have been proved by the wife, the court is competent to award maintenance. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the order passed - 3 - by both the lower Courts below. Secondly, merely because the order is open for the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, that does not absolve him from his liability to maintenance under Section 125. . With the result, the petition is dismissed. (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.)