1 Cri.WP No.589/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 589/2010. Smt. Latabai w/o Subhash Kale Age: 48 Yrs., occu. Household, r/o Pimpri, Tq. Selu, District Parbhani. - PETITIONER VERSUS Subhash s/o Kashinath Kale, Age: 53 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Nirwadi (Bk.), Tq.Selu, Dist. Parbhani. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.SS Rathi, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st March, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2) Refusal of maintenance in Misc. Application No.53/2007 dated 18.2.2009 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Selu, was questioned in Criminal Revision No.2/2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Parbhani, who, confirmed the order of learned 2 Cri.WP No.589/2010 JMFC of refusal of maintenance, the same is impugned in this writ petition. 3) A short point involved in the matter is, there is an agricultural property, admeasuring 5 acres, allotted in the name of petitioner/wife, being land Gut No.64 situated at Nirwadi (Bk) Tq. Selu, so established by production of revenue record (Exhibits-40 and 41). The evidence illustrate that the wife did not dispute the property to be in her name, revenue record illustrate that it was cultivated by her, though disputed by the wife. 4) The learned Counsel for the wife submits that the Respondent/husband has more than 20-30 acres land, he has distributed to his family members, even to his keep and the children begotten from the keep, but it is a flick created by him to avoid and dodge the legal process as, the entire property is cultivated by him and he is making good yield thereof. These aspects are contrary to the record as indicated above. If the wife, petitioner herein, is restrained or refrained from carrying out cultivation activities, there are other ways and means for her to adopt. The record illustrate, the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself, so established from possession entries of 1989-1990 3 Cri.WP No.589/2010 till 1996-1997. The cultivation column also indicates that cash crops were taken and both the courts found that the petitioner/wife earns Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- as a profit per year. The findings of both the courts do not call for any interference, as no perversity could be shown surfacing or any illegality therein. Consequently, the writ petition is sans merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/