1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2009 Mr.Salim Rasool Baksh Salmani ..... Applicant vs. Mrs.Nilofar Salim Rasool Baksh ..... Respondents Salmani & Ors. Mr.V.M. Sagare, Advocate for applicant. Mr.Imran Sheikh i/by Khan Abdul Wahab, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 28th August, 2009. PC : 1. This Criminal Revision Application is preferred to challenge the correctness and legality of the order dated 24th February 2009 passed by the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No.E-116 of 2007 awarding the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the advocates. The challenge to the order is on the ground that asthe applicant has already given talakh to the respondent is not liable to maintain her. It is the case of the applicant that he gave oral talakh to respondent on 25th December 2002 and talakh in writing, three years thereafter i.e. on 21st February 2001. He has examined two witnesses in 2 support of his claim namely Mohammed Karmal Akhtar and Rehmat Vajir Ali. Both these witnesses have given completely different dates of the alleged oral and writing divorce. Mohammed Akhtar states that the oral divorce was pronounced on 30th January 2005 and the written divorce on 23rd February 2005. Whereas Rehmat Ali states that the oral divorce was pronounced on 22nd January 2005 and the written divorce on 23rd February 2005. The trial Court has disbelieved the applicant and his two witnesses as regards the divorce. I find no error or illegality in the finding. The applicant claims that he has no means whatsoever to maintain himself, he does not have any property standing n his name. Undisputedly the applicant was owner of two flats and two shops. He has transferred the flats and the shops to the name of his first wife, pending the maintenance proceedings. 3. I have carefully gone through the impugned order and the evidence on record. In my opinion, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)