( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2009 Vazir Pasha Maheboob Shaikh .. Petitioner Versus Yasmeen Begum w/o. Vazir Pasha Shaikh .. Respondents and two ors. Shri R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Fatima Kazi h/f. Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 12.11.2009 P.C. :- 1. This writ petition is filed by original respondent – husband against whom the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 181 of 2000, decided on 29.03.2008, passed order awarding maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to present respondent No.1 and maintenance of Rs. 500/- to each of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Said order is further confirmed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, ( 2 ) Latur, in Revision No. 50 of 2008, decided on 27.11.2008. 2. Heard Shri R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Kazi, Advocate for respondents. Both the advocates have taken me through judgments of the Courts below. Adv. Shri Ashtekar for the petitioner stated that present petitioner has filed marriage petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 11.10.2006 and immediately thereafter on 13.11.2006, the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. came to be filed. Said application is just counter-blast to the marriage petition filed by the petitioner. He also argued that question of quantum was not considered. It has come in the evidence that the petitioner has executed Hibanama in favour of his brother and there is entry in the revenue record and same was not considered. 3. Smt. Kazi argued that so called Hibanama was not produced on record and was not proved. It was not a registered document and without registration it has no value in law. Moreover, the petitioner is practicing advocate and the quantum awarded is just sufficient in these days of high ( 3 ) prices. She also further stated that the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have accepted the theory putforth by respondent No.1 regarding illtreatment, harassment and desertion. In the circumstances, this Court should not interfere in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of writ jurisdiction. 4. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of both sides. He discussed the evidence of respondent No.1 at length in para 11 and 12. Respondent No.1 has stated that respondent was addicted to various vices. He was demanding money. Rs.60,000/- were paid by her father, but still demand continued. The petitioner wanted Rs. 2 lakhs to be brought by respondent No.1 from her father for construction of house, which demand could not be satisfied and therefore at the time of Pola of year prior to her deposition, she was driven out of the house and asked to come only with the money. The Trial Court so also the Revisional Court considered the evidence of respondent No.1 trustworthy. On the other hand the evidence of the petitioner was discussed at length and it was found that he was not reliable witness. The petitioner admitted that he never went to Ujni. Respondent No.1 resides ( 4 ) with her children and he has also not provided any maintenance. Nothing was produced on record to show that he had made any provision for maintenance of his children and wife. The petitioner did say that he sent his two brothers to Ujni. But the Trial Court did not believe that version and observed that there is attempt to conceal the truth. In para 14, the learned Magistrate considered say of original respondent No.1/petitioner that he has remarried pending the proceedings and Siyanama was produced on record. The Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the second marriage has been performed by the petitioner. So, all necessary evidence is considered in detail by the Magistrate. The revisional Court has considered the evidence in brief. But, I find that the evidence is sufficiently discussed by the learned Magistrate. In para 17, it is discussed that the petitioner has come with a case that respondent No.1 refused to have sexual relationship, but the fact that two children were born was taken into consideration and that story was also not believed. 5. So far as quantum is concerned, the Trial Court has taken into consideration in para 20 that though Hibanama is ( 5 ) said to have been executed as per mutation entry produced at Exh.38, original Hibanama was not produced before the Court. Smt. Kazi stated that if there is written Hibanama, it should be registered. Moreover, the petitioner is an advocate of about 9 years standing and the Trial Court held that such person can be held to be earning at least Rs. 10,000/- per month. If we are to believe case of the petitioner regarding Hibanama, that would only mean that the petitioner’s income was much more than Rs. 10,000/-, otherwise he would not have gifted 2 hectares irrigated land from which according to the Trial Court atleast income of Rs. 1 lakh he could get. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court is reasonable and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crwp9.09