Kps 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.262/2008 Nagesh Dhanappa Chikanti. .....Petitioner V/s Manisha Nagesh Chilkanti and another. .......Respondents ............. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.S.Pedmekar, APP for the State. ............. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. Dated :- 06th May, 2009 PC :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 The Petitioner/husband has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 11.03.2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court by which the Petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the first Respondent/wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as “the said Code”). 3 First submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the first Respondent/wife stayed with the Petitioner only for a period of four months after the marriage and she has not adduced any evidence to show that she had any reason to stay away from the Petitioner. She pointed out that in May, 2001 a complaint was filed by the first Respondent alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and other family members of the Petitioner. She pointed out that only after the order of acquittal was passed, the present application under Section 125 of the said Code has been filed. She pointed out that the Petitioner had to give up his job due to court litigation and today he is working as a labourer. She has placed reliance on the salary slips of the year 2002. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the Kps 2 Petitioner filed a petition for divorce against the first Respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. The said petition has been dismissed by the Family Court and the appeal against the said order is pending. Thus, as of today the petition filed by the Petitioner/ husband against the first Respondent/wife claiming divorce on the ground of cruelty stands dismissed. In paragraph No.12 of the impugned order, the learned Judge has recorded a finding that earlier the Petitioner was in service and was drawing salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and thereafter, he has left the job. The salary slip produced by the counsel for the Petitioner is of the year 2002 and the application under Section 125 of the said Code was filed in the year 2007. Considering the admitted fact that at one point of time the Petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, no fault can be found with the impugned order by which monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- is granted. The proceedings under Section 125 of the said Code are summary in nature. In the event of change in circumstances, the parties have an opportunity to apply under Section 127 of the said Code. No case for interference is made. Revision Application is rejected. JUDGE