(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Revision Application No. 174 of 2010 Syed Kaisar s/o. Syed Kasim, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Nandavan Colony, Chavani, Aurangabad. .. Applicant. versus 1. Nafisabegum w/o. Syed Kaisar, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. at present, Shaikh Mahboob s/o. Abdul Rahman, Sharif Colony, Aurangabad. 2. Saniya d/o. Syed Kaisar, Age : minor, u/g. of petitioner no.1, the real mother. .. Respondents. .......................... Ms. A.N. Ansari, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Shaikh Ashpale Taher Patel, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. .......................... (2) CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, dated 17th May 2010, in Petition No. E-4/2009, directing the applicant to pay certain amount as maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to his wife and minor daughter who are respondents herein. 2. The relationship between the parties is admitted. After the marriage, which took place in 2007, the respondent no.2 was born to this couple. It is the case of the respondent no.1, that she was not treated properly after the marriage and that demands were made to her. She said, she even lodged complaints with Police and certain family counseling center. She said, she was unable to stay with the applicant/husband due to his atrocious conduct. 3. The revision applicant, in reply, took up a defence that he had lawfully divorced the respondent no.1. The main (3) question that arose between the parties, thus, was whether the applicant/husband could prove the divorce? 4. Although he examined the Kazi, before whom, he effected Talak (divorce) to the respondent no.1 the learned Judge of the Family Court did not accept the case of the revision applicant/husband. It was held that the revision applicant/husband could not prove his case of divorce as he did not prove that he followed the procedure, that is laid down before effecting such divorce, in the judgment of Full Bench of this court, in the case of Dagdu Chotu Pathan Vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan and others (2002(3) Mh.L.J. 602). 5. I went through the depositions of the revision applicant/husband, as well as, his witness, the Kazi. There is not only variance in the depositions, but the Kazi said, that on 4th August 2009, for the first time, he sent a notice to the respondent no.1/wife, requesting her to come before him for reconciliation. He said, she did not obey his direction to come before him. He said, due to such disobedience, on the same day, he allowed the applicant to pronounce divorce. The procedure followed by the Kazi, thus, was not in consonance with the elaborate procedure expected in such case. (4) 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court, thus, committed no error while passing the impugned order. No fault can be found even on the count of amount of maintenance granted to the respondent nos.1 and 2. The amount of maintenance is quite measly. It is only Rs. 1000/- per month and Rs. 750/- per month granted to the respondent nos.1 and 2, respectively. I find no substance in the revision application. 7. In the result, the revision application is dismissed. Needless to state, that the interim stay, granted by this court, stands vacated. ( A.V. NIRGUDE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/kra174