IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.764 OF 2007 Shri Gaurav Pramod Dixit .. Petitioner Vs. Sau Gitali Gaurav Dixit & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Arun Palekar for petitioner. Mr.Rohan Sonawane h/f Mr.M.N.Sandhyanshiv for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 29th August 2008. : 29th August 2008. : 29th August 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were fully heard on 14th August 2008. However, the judgment was not dictated to enable the advocate for petitioner to obtain instructions from the petitioner. 2. With a view to appreciate submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent was solemnised on 27th November 2003. An application was filed by the 1st respondent wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) for grant of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for : 2 : 2 : 2 : herself and for minor daughter i.e the 2nd respondent. An order was passed on 29th July 2006 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the 1st respondent wife and maintenance of Rs.1,200/- for the 2nd respondent daughter. A revision application was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court. The said revision application has been partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by reducing the maintenance payable to the 1st respondent to Rs.900/- per month and the maintenance to the 2nd respondent to Rs.500/- per month. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner was that he was not served with a notice of the application made under section 125 of the said Code. He invited my attention to the relevant discussion in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge on this aspect. He pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to remedy available to the petitioner under sub section 2 of section 126 of the said Code. He submitted that a after holding that a remedy was available to the petitioner, the learned Judge however proceeded to decide the revision application on merits. He submitted that if learned Judge was of the view that a remedy was available under section 126(2) of the said Code, the : 3 : 3 : 3 : learned Judge ought to have disposed of the revision by permitting the petitioner to adopt the remedy. He pointed out that the learned Judge has on merits confirmed the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate as regards entitlement of the 1st and 2nd respondents to maintenance and therefore, now the remedy of approaching the trial Court by an application under section 126(2) of the said Code is no longer available. He submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error by directing the petitioner to pay total maintenance of Rs.1,400/- per month and that also from the date of application. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the impugned judgment and order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. Before the learned Magistrate when application filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents was heard, the petitioner did not appear. His case made out before the Sessions Court was that he was not served with the notice of the application. It appears from the judgment of the revisional Court that what was argued before the revisional Court was that the signature of the petitioner appearing on the summons/notice of the application under section 125 of the said Code was forged one. This submission was made by pointing out signatures of the petitioner on vakalatnama and other documents on record. It was pointed out that on the : 4 : 4 : 4 : office copy of the Court summons/notice, only initials were appearing and therefore notice was not duly served. 5. Under section 126(2) of the said Code, a remedy is available to the opponent in an application section 125 of the said Code to make an application before the learned Magistrate for setting aside the exparte order on good cause being shown. If such application is made under sub section 2 of section 126, the parties can lead evidence and thereafter the learned Magistrate can decide whether there was any good cause shown or whether the opponent in the application was duly served the notice. Such application is always decided after permitting the parties to lead evidence. The petitioner for reasons best known to him did not adopt the said remedy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that if the petitioner had availed of the said remedy, he would have got an opportunity of adducing evidence in support of his case that he was not served with the notice. Nothing prevented the petitioner from withdrawing the pending revision application with a liberty to file an application under sub section 2 of section 126. However, petitioner failed to take any steps in that behalf and had chosen to argue the revision application on merits. Apart from contention regarding non service, there are other points for determination framed by the Sessions Court. It appears : 5 : 5 : 5 : that other factual contentions on merits were also urged before the Sessions Court on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the Sessions Court had no option but to decide the revision application on merits as submissions were made on the merits of the order passed under section 125 of the said Code. 6. The Sessions Court considered the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent and in particular her testimony on oath in which she had given details about ill-treatment by the petitioner and the refusal and neglect on his part to maintain her. In absence of any challenge to the oral testimony, the learned Magistrate accepted the same and there were no reasons for the learned Sessions Judge to discard the said evidence. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate as regards the income of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate accepted that the petitioner was working as priest and that he was also in service. The trial Court had granted total maintenance of Rs.2,700/-. The said amount has been brought down by the Sessions Court to Rs.1,400/- per month. Infact the learned additional Sessions Judge has taken a charitable view of the matter and without petitioner leading any evidence, he has substantially reduced the total maintenance amount. : 6 : 6 : 6 : 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects, I find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which revision application preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and maintenance allowance payable by him was reduced. 8. No case for interference is made out in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. On the prayer made by the advocate for the petitioner, time of 12 weeks is granted to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of maintenance as per the impugned order. (A.S. Oka, J)