1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 58 OF 2010 Santram @ Rajabhau s/o Mahadeo Rupnar, Aged 33 years, Occupatioin Agriculture, Resident of Bodhegaon, Taluka Parli- Vaijnath, District Beed Applicant V E R S U S Shakuntala w/o Santram @ Rajabhau rupnar, Aged 31 years, Occupation Household, Resident of Bodhegaon, Now residing at Yelda, Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed Respondent Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Adv for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the Judgment and order passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge – 1, Ambajogai, dated 31st December, 2009, in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2009. 2. The applicant is legally wedded husband of the respondent. The respondent moved her application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the applicant in 2007, but the same was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai. The respondent challenged this order in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2009, and after hearing the parties and after perusing the evidence etc, the learned Judge of the revisional Court allowed the same and directed the applicant to pay Rs.500/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the application to the 2 respondent / wife. 3. Admittedly the marriage of parties took place in 1997 and admittedly the respondent stayed with the applicant for about 8 to 10 months. Thereafter, she left his house, according to her, because she was harassed and beaten up over demand of dowry etc. For next nine years nothing happened between the parties. Admittedly, the applicant / husband did not take steps to bring the respondent / his wife back to his house. Even assuming that the applicant did not drive the respondent away from his house in 1998, this silence on his part would be a circumstance against him. There was a reason why the parties remained away from each other for as long as nine years. In 1998, there occurred violent incident between the applicant’s father and the respondent’s father. Due to this quarrel, the respondent’s father suffered an injury. A crime was registered against the applicant’s father and this case continued till 2007. Ultimately, the applicant’s father secured acquittal in that case. Obviously, due to this dispute and Court case, the parties had no opportunity to meet again. They were staying away from each other. During these nine years of separation, it is but obvious that the applicant would get re- married. This allegation of the respondent is quite believable. On the other hand, the applicant is admittedly still unmarried, so her application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure deserved to be allowed. The learned Judge had taken this view and it is not incorrect. There is no need to interfere in the impugned Judgment and order. The revision application stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/cra/58/10/20910 3