1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3291/2006 Arun S/o Narayanrao Chandekar, Aged about 30 years, Occupation : Labourer, R/o Chamedia Nagar, Yavatmal. APPLICANT VERSUS Sau. Sangita W/o Arun Chandekar, aged about 23 years, Occupation Labourer, R/o Umarhir, Post Munjala, Tah. Ralegaon, District Yavatmal ... RESPONDENT .... Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the Applicant.. None for the respondent. ...... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 16/04/2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Heard Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel for the applicant. The respondent though served has chosen not to put in appearance. 2 2] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) in Criminal Revision Application No. 13/2005 dismissing Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicant. 3] The applicant is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed Misc. Criminal Application No.11/2004 against the applicant seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. Learned J.M.F.C. Kelapur by order dated 4.3.2005 granted maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month to the respondent from the date of the application. The Criminal Revision Application preferred against the said order by the present applicant was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 4] Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to maintain the respondent provided she cohabits with the applicant. He further submitted that the amount of Rs. 600/- per month awarded by way of maintenance is on higher side. Therefore, 3 the orders passed by both the Revisional Court as well as J.M.F. C. are liable to be quashed and set aside. 5] None appeared on behalf of the respondent though served. 6] Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and having perused the records, I find no merit in the present application. The learned Magistrate, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, held that the respondent was not able to maintain herself and the applicant was earning about Rs. 2000/- per month. The learned Magistrate also relied upon the fact that the suit filed by the present applicant for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Civil Court and no steps were taken by the applicant to set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge. The learned Magistrate, therefore, awarded Rs. 600/- per month in favour of the respondent by way of maintenance. 7] Upon close scrutiny of the orders passed by the Courts below and the evidence produced before the learned Magistrate, I am satisfied that no case is made out by the 4 applicant for this Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. It is well settled that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be sparingly exercised. In my opinion, the Magistrate as well as Revisional Court have correctly analysed the evidence on record and recorded the findings which cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, I find no merit in the present application. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Since the respondent has chosen not to put in appearance, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE