1 Cri. W.P. No.1101/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.1101 Of 2010 Asha Wd/o Rajanikant Sonwane. .. Petitioner. Versus Rabhaji s/o. Mahadu Sonwane And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. Darshan D Pokharkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28th JUNE 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The widow – Asha does not dispute the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- from the date of filing of the applicant payable by the original opponent No.1, her father- in-law. She questions exoneration of her brothers-in-law, real brothers of her husband, from such liability of maintenance. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant – widow submits that, paragraph one of the petition illustrates that the brothers- 2 Cri. W.P. No.1101/2010 in-law were residing with her deceased husband in joint Hindu family and consequently the responsibility to pay maintenance also should be shouldered by them. 4) The learned Judge has, on assessment of the evidence and documents, in paragraph 10 observed thus: "10. The opponents have not disputed their relationship with the applicant. Careful perusal of the contents of the application reveal that applicant has come up with the case that the opponent Nos.2 and 3 who are her brothers in law were residing at Mumbai out of their service and milk business. No where she has specifically averred that the opponent Nos.2 and 3 were residing together with her in the joint family. However, according to the applicant, all the opponent have committed acts of domestic violence by beating, harassing and ill treating her. While deciding present application, we have to see whether applicant is entitled to maintenance from the opponent Nos.1 to 3." The learned Magistrate has taken care to browse to the provisions of Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The observations of the learned Judge need not be branded to be out of context. The brothers-in- law were residing at Mumbai carrying independent activities, they may have sustained losses, however, that may not be a ground to presume that they returned home and are members of the joint Hindu family. 3 Cri. W.P. No.1101/2010 5) That apart, the land Gut No.108/2B/2 admeasuring 33 R and land Gut No.323/1 admeasuring 67 R was given to the share of the deceased Rajnikant. However, it was in the name of his father Rabhaji. This also adds to the feathers, as has been observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sangamner. 6) Taking over all view of the above, I do not see any error or irregularity in the order questioned. It does not call for any interference. The writ petition lacks merits, dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl