crwp292.97 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 1997 Sow Jayashree Narayan Zagade Age 29 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Shedgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar ...Petitioner Versus 1 Narayan Mahadeo Zagade, Age 30 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Zagade Wadi, Tq. Daund, District Pune 2 State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad) ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 23RD MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 By the present writ petition, the petitioner wife questioned correctness and legality of order dated 7.7.1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 1994, by which the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment crwp292.97 -2- and order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Shrigonda in Criminal Misc. application No. 5 of 1990 decided on 31.12.1993, which was filed by the present petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 2 Record shows that Rule was issued in this writ petition on 6.8.1999 and hearing of the petition has been expedited. 3 Today, when writ petition came up for final hearing, I have heard learned counsel Mr. Bedre, for the petitioner, Mr. Chaudhari for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2. 4 In the present criminal writ petition the correctness of order passed in criminal revision application No. 30 of 1994 dated 7.7.1997 is questioned. It is not necessary to enter into the evidence led by the petitioner before the trial court as the court cannot reappreciate the said evidence, as this is not forum sitting in appeal to reconsider and/or to reappreciate the facts. 5 For better appreciation of the rival submissions advanced across the bar by both sides, it is necessary to refer some of the undisputed facts before both the courts below. 6 It was urged before the courts below that the petitioner is wife of crwp292.97 -3- respondent-husband and the marriage was performed somewhere in the year 1988. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially for a period of two years, relations between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were cordial. Thereafter, the petitioner wife was driven out from the house by respondent-husband somewhere in the year 1990 and since then petitioner-wife is residing with her parents. As she has no source of income for her livelihood and for her day to day maintenance, she filed an application bearing Criminal Misc. application No. 5 of 1990 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned J.M.F.C. Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. Parties were directed to lead their evidence in support of their contentions. On appreciation of evidence, led by the parties, learned Magistrate was of the view that even though petitioner/applicant has proved that the applicant is living separately from residence but she is living separately without any sufficient cause. Learned Magistrate has also recorded finding that petitioner wife failed to establish that respondent-husband refused and neglected to maintain her. Judgment was delivered in the said Misc. application on 31.12.1993. 7 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Shrigonda, petitioner wife had filed criminal revision application bearing No. 30 of 1994, thereby questioning correctness and legality of the said order in the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar. crwp292.97 -4- After hearing both sides, learned Sessions Judge concurred with the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate and has recorded its finding that petitioner wife has failed to prove that respondent-husband has refused and neglected to maintain her. This judgment was delivered on 7.7.1997, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 8 In the backdrop of findings recorded by both the courts below, I heard learned counsel for the petitioner so also learned counsel for respondent-husband. I have also perused the judgment of both the courts below. Perusal of findings recorded by both the courts below, particularly for the reasons recorded in para 4 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, it speaks that the petitioner wife failed to prove that respondent-husband refused and neglected to maintain her. Further, learned Magistrate for the reasons recorded in last part of the said paragraph, has also concluded that the petitioner wife is living separately from respondent-husband without any sufficient cause. Perusal of judgment of the revisional court it seems that in para 10 of the said judgment it is observed that once it is held that applicant has failed to prove that the opponent has refused and neglected to maintain her, question of maintenance in fact does not arise. 9 On careful perusal of judgments of both the course below, I am of the view that view taken by both the courts below is possible and crwp292.97 -5- probable view, which cannot be viewed otherwise. I also do not find any perversity in the findings recorded in the judgments of both the courts below, as the view taken by both the courts below is probable and possible view. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 1994 at the hands of this court. 10 In substance, writ petition sans any merit and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. *****