( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2009 Walmik s/o Suryabhan Magar PETITIONER VERSUS Mangalbai w/o Walmik Magar RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Sachin Panale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Shinde, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th October, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent - wife, the petitioner has preferred this petition seeking quashing of the order rendered by the learned revisional Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has not complied with the direction of this Court to deposit the arrears at rate ( 2 ) of Rs. 500/- p.m. and to pay amount of maintenance allowance at Rs. 500/- p.m. before 15th day of each calender month as required under the order dated 21st August, 2009. Needless to say, the petitioner has committed default. On this sole ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Coming to the merits, it emerges from the record that the spouses are incompatible. The status of the respondent as legally wedded wife of the petitioner is not in dispute. The marriage was performed before about 21 years of the commencement of the proceedings for separate maintenance allowance. The very fact that the wife resided with the petitioner for considerable period of about twenty (20) years and there are three (3) children born out of the wedlock would make it amply clear that the wife continued to reside with him notwithstanding some minor domestic squabbles. The defence of the petitioner was that she had left his house on her own accord and is residing separately without any reason or rhyme. ( 3 ) 5. What appears from the record is that an amount of Rs. 70,000/- was kept in fixed deposit in the name of the respondent – wife and the elder son by name Mininath. It appears that the deposited amount of Rs. 35,000/- each were withdrawn by them. They alleged that the amounts were self-acquired and, therefore, the same were withdrawn. It appears that brother of the respondent has filed a civil suit against the petitioner. 6. The evidence on record indicated that the petitioner was annoyed due to withdrawal of the amounts by the respondent and, therefore, the spouses separated. She filed criminal prosecution against him for offences punishable under section 326 and 323 of the I.P. Code. According to the wife, she was ill-treated and beaten up by him. The learned Judicial Magistrate gave much importance to the version of DW2 Manisha, who is the daughter of the spouses and is admittedly residing with the petitioner. The teenager girl could not have personal knowledge as regards the transaction pertaining to fixed deposits and withdrawal of the amounts. Her ( 4 ) testimony could not be of much probative value. It is more probable that she was under the influence of the petitioner in as much as she resides with him. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have taken a reasonable view having regard to the circumstances and the evidence on record. The amount of maintenance allowance awarded is also not on higher side. 7. Considering the foregoing reasons and in view of the default committed by the petitioner by not complying with the order of this Court, the petition is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp691.09