(1) CRI. WP. 771.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.771 OF 2010 Dagdu Nabisaheb Auti, Age: 62 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o. Dhoki, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad PETITIONER VERSUS Aminabee Dagdu Pasha Auti @Shaikh, Age : 46 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Dhoki, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for the Petitioner. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 8TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges judgment rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad in the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision Application no. 138 of 2009 whereby the maintenance order came to be confirmed. 2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance allowance of Rs.700/- per month to the respondent. (2) CRI. WP. 771.2010 3. The findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are confirmed by the revisional Court. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. He invited my attention to the observations of the learned Magistrate in paragraph no.20 and 21 of the impugned judgment. It prima facie appears that the respondent was said to have married one Sayed Afzal in 1959. The version of D.W.3 Kazi Badruddin reveal, however, that the marriage was performed in 1969. It was also noticed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the relevant marriage report (Exh.51) was interpolated and part of the entry was erased. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also noticed that when the sons of the respondent were admitted in the school then the father's name was shown as Jabbar Dagadu Shaikh (petitioner). The respondent adduced evidence to show that the petitioner married her. It appears that she had previously filed proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner but again she started residing (3) CRI. WP. 771.2010 with him when he assured to give her proper treatment. She examined P.W.2 Abdul Latif Mohiuddin Kazi in support of the allegations regarding her marriage with the petitioner. The siyanama (Exh.20) was duly corroborated by the Kazi. The evidence of the parties is duly appreciated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that amount of Rs.700/- is too excessive. I do not agree. On the other hand, it is too meager. In the present days, bare sustenance of a woman is difficult on basis of such paltry amount of the maintenance allowance. 5. The findings of facts cannot be interferred in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be termed as Writ Petition as such. The Apex Court in "Shalini Shyam Shetty and anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 661" categorically held that such a Petition cannot be deemed as Writ Petition. The Office to take necessary note for (4) CRI. WP. 771.2010 separate categorization of the Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which are filed in the Office against the orders of the Judicial/quasi Judicial authority and wherein the State is not a stake holder. The Registrar (Judicial) to place necessary proposal for segregation of such category in view of the judgment referred to hereinabove. The exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are only to oversee the legality and propriety of the judicial work of the Courts blow and to rectify the errors which are so fundamental that the proceedings are likely to be held as vitiated. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for re-appreciation of the evidence. In this view of the matter, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp