1 W.P.No.734/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 734 OF 2010 Haroon Mehboob Patel ...Petitioner vs. Mrs.Ruksana Haroon Patel & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Nitin B. Patil i/b. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. 2 The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, dated 5th December, 2009. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the revision application filed by the petitioner herein and was pleased to confirm the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife under 2 W.P.No.734/2010 Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 3 Brief facts are that the petitioner and the respondent got married in the year 1979. Three children were born out of the said marriage. After 15 years, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial house and thereafter, was residing with her father. However, two years after her father expired, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of JMFC, Daund. In the application, it was alleged that the present petitioner was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to assault her and as a result of harassment by the husband, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house. The learned Magistrate after going through the evidence on record awarded the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision application in the Sessions Court. This application was also dismissed. 3 W.P.No.734/2010 Being aggrieved, therefore, the petitioner has filed this present petition. 4 It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent-wife had deserted the petitioner, she was not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, it was submitted that the application for maintenance was filed almost after fourteen years after she had left the matrimonial house. Thirdly,it was submitted that no evidence was brought on record to show that the petitioner had sufficient income to pay Rs.1000/- as maintenance per month. 5 I have perused the judgment and order of the trial court and also the Sessions Court. Both the Courts have taken into consideration arguments advanced by the petitioner herein and thereafter, by a reasoned order, the application filed by the wife was allowed by the trial court and this order has 4 W.P.No.734/2010 been confirmed by the Sessions Court. It has come on record that the petitioner herein got married for the second time. It is settled position in law that second marriage of the husband could be a good ground for not residing with him in the matrimonial house. Apart from that, the respondent-wife has given cogent reasons why she was compelled to leave the house. The contention of the learned Counsel that the respondent-wife deserved him, therefore, cannot be accepted. Secondly, after leaving the matrimonial house, the respondent-wife was looking after by her father and only after her father died, she was compelled to file an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts, in my view, no case is made out by the petitioner for interfering with the impugned order by the Sessions Court. 6 The petition, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)