* 1 * REVN-APPLN-134-2001 9. Dec. 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2001 Sou. Surekha Ramesh Bhosale ....Applicant V/s. Shri. Ramesh @ Lalsing Hanumantrao Bhosale and anr. .....Respondents/Orig.Opponent * * * * * Mr. Mohan N. Dhamal a/w. Vishal Dhamal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.S. Ghadge, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 9 December, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Admit. By consent, taken up for hearing immediately. 2. The applicant is the wife of respondent no.1. She had filed the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandala seeking maintenance alleging that in the year 1990 she was driven out of the house. The trial court allowed the application by its order dated 9th January, 1997 and awarded maintenance of Rs.300/- per month from the date of the application. Being aggrieved by the order, respondent no.1 preferred Revision Application before the District Court, Satara. The Revision Application came to be * 2 * REVN-APPLN-134-2001 9. Dec. 2011 allowed by the order dated 5th November, 1999 which order is impugned herein. 3. The marriage of the parties took place on 23rd May, 1989. Thereafter, the applicant came to reside with respondent no.1 at the matrimonial house. The mother and grandmother of respondent no.1 were the other members of the family. The applicant alleged in her application for maintenance, that the grandmother of respondent no.1 started illtreating her over trival issues. In the month of May, 1990 the applicant was allegedly driven to the house of her parents by the brother of respondent no. 1. Thereafter, the father of the applicant and other relatives tried to intervene and asked respondent no.1 to take the applicant back into the house. He, however, refused to do so and also refused to maintain her. Respondent no.1 in his reply rebutted all the allegations of the applicant and contended that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home as her desire to stay separately was not being fulfilled by respondent no.1. The parties have examined themselves in support of the respective claims. The applicant in her cross-examination in terms, admitted the contentions of respondent no.1. She admitted that grandmother of respondent no.1 used to only guide her into the household work. This had upset the aplicant and she desired to live separately from the grandmother-in-law. Respondent no.1 had told her that since after the death of his parents, he * 3 * REVN-APPLN-134-2001 9. Dec. 2011 had been brought up by the grandmother, it was not possible for him to stay separate from her. On this issue, the applicant admittedly used to quarrel with respondent no.1 and often go to her parents house. She further admitted in the cross-examination that in the month of April, 1990 she left the matrimonial house because respondent no.1 did not pay any heed to the threat given by her that she would commit suicide if he did not separate from his grandmother. The Revisional Court found that the categorical admissions by the applicant in her cross-examination showed that there was no reasonable cause for living separate from respondent no.1. There was nothing on record to indicate that respondent no.1 had failed or neglected to maintain the applicant. Therefore, the Revisional Court allowed the Revision Application and dismissed the complaint. Perusal of the notes of evidence confirms the view taken by the Revisional Court. The applicant has in terms admitted in her cross-examination that she had left the matrimonial house because respondent no.1 was not willing to leave separately from his grandmother. The applicant did not want to live with the grandmother of respondent no.1 in the house. Therefore, I find no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]