1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.373 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : February 15, 2010 1. Heard Shri M.K.Goyenka, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri V.B.Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is husband of Respondent No.1 and father of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, challenges the order of maintenance of Rs.1000/= per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs.600/= per month to each of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Muktainagar, District Jalgaon, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 22 of 2000 decided on 17.1.2003 which judgment and order is 2 further confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, by his judgment and order dated 17.2.2009 in Criminal Revision Application No.139 of 2003. 3. It is no more disputed that Respondent No.1 is the wife of the present petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are their children. Respondent No.1 filed application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to herself and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, alleging that there was desertion, neglect and cruelty by the petitioner to her. Present petitioner resisted the said application by his say vide Exh.9. He denied paternity of applicant Nos. 2 to 4 (present respondent Nos. 2 to 4). He also alleged that Respondent No.1 had illicit relations with one Ankush Lokare and Sachin More. However, no satisfactory evidence in that behalf was led by the petitioner except of himself. 3 4. On the other hand, Respondents (original applicants) examined in all three witnesses and also produced documents in respect of their claim. There is presumption regarding legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court, so also revisional court, in my considered opinion, no illegality is found in the judgment of the courts below. 6. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 relied upon the case of Nirmal Das vs. Sunita 2006 (3) Mh.L.J.549, regarding necessity to prove the allegation of living in adultery. In this case, there is no direct evidence about adultery. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the said ground, though taken, is proved. On the other hand, making such unfounded serious allegation itself amounts to mental cruelty and makes the wife entitle to mainteance. 4 7. Hence, writ petition dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Date:15/02/2010 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criwp373.09