Ladda 1 wp-2623-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2623 OF 2009 Abasaheb Vitthal Bhosale ...Petitioner. Versus Padmavati @ Sadhana Abasaheb Bhosale and others ...Respondents. ...... Mr Amit Mane i/by Sanjeev P. Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs P. P. Bhosale, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:­ 15th April, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule, rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this petition. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner­husband has challenged the order of the Sessions Judge, Satara dated 23rd June, 2009. By impugned order revision application preferred by the petitioner husband bearing No.53 of 2008 was rejected and the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 7th Court, Satara dated 31st July, Ladda 2 wp-2623-09.doc 2007 was revived. By the order of J.M.F.C. Satara on the application of respondent No.2­wife on the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. directions were given to the present petitioner­husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/­ per month to the wife. He was also directed to pay the cost of the application quantified at Rs.500/­to the Respondent No.2­wife. This order was challenged before the Sessions Court as mentioned above. Vide order dated 23rd June,2009 revision petition was dismissed and costs for revision petition quantified at Rs.1000/­ were directed to be paid to the wife. Apparently, being aggrieved by both the said orders present writ petition was filed before this Court. 4. Earlier Bench (Shri N.D.Deshpande,J) gave directions to the present petitioner­husband to deposit the entire arrears amount as per the order of J.M.F.C. and on deposit of such amount directions were given to issue notice to the respondent­wife. 5. On previous date when the matter was before this Bench on 31.3.2011 submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to his knowledge the entire arrears of amount has Ladda 3 wp-2623-09.doc not been deposited. However, it was prayed that the matter is required to be heard for admission. On that premise matter was adjourned to on today’s date and arguments were heard for some time. 6. Perused the record and proceedings. The factual position, as virtually admitted on behalf of the petitioner, is as under:­ 7. Sometime in the year 1982, the petitioner husband had preferred Marriage Petition bearing No. 10 of 1982 for declaration of his marriage with present respondent­wife being null and void. In the said application an amount of Rs.75/­ per month was awarded against the husband to be paid to the wife. Regular Civil Appeal No. 344 of 1985 was preferred by the wife. Though the said appeal was not allowed, the civil Court endorsed that marriage between the parties was legal and confirmed the payment of Rs.75/­ per month to be paid to the wife. Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2004 i.e. after the lapse of about 15 years of such earlier maintenance order, present respondent wife preferred an application for maintenance asking for the maintenance of Rs.1500/­per month. Said Ladda 4 wp-2623-09.doc application was partly allowed vide order dated 31.7.2007 by J.M.F.C. 7th Court, Satara and directions were given to the present petitioner husband to pay Rs.800/­ per month to the wife and costs of the petition. Thereafter, as mentioned above, the matter was taken before the Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision. Said criminal revision was dismissed as detailed above. 8. During the arguments, only point canvassed before this Bench is that there cannot be grant of maintenance that also to the extent of 800/­ per month by the criminal court under the provisions of section 125 of Cr.P.C.,more so, when there is earlier order of the civil court granting maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 75/­ per month. This submission has not been accepted by the trial Court, also the revisional court and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. Needless to mention that there is no bar for grant of any maintenance allowance u/s 125 though there is any order of maintenance by order of any civil court. What is to be seen while awarding such maintenance by the criminal court is the extent of quantum considering the maintenance granted by the civil court. As mentioned above, said aspect has been rightly dealt with by Ladda 5 wp-2623-09.doc both the courts below and an amount of Rs.800/­ has been fixed to be paid to the wife by present petitioner­husband. For that purpose in order to arrive at the said quantum of Rs.800/­ it is held by the J.M.F.C.Court that the present petitioner husband is able bodied person and allegedly earning Rs.15000/­ per month by way of service in cotton mill at Mumbai. It is admitted position that present petitioner has at least 4 acres agricultural land on his name. Apparently, these aspects weighed with the trial court in quantifying the amount of maintenance and said order has been rightly up held by the revisional Court. In that view of the matter, there is nothing to entertain the present petition and same is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)