1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.58/2010 Petitioner :- Shri Gajanan s/o Vithobaji Parate, Aged about 30 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Lalganj, Kumbharpura, Near Rashtraseva Vidyalaya, Nagpur. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. Smt. Mamta w/o Gajanan Parate, Aged about 25 years, Occ : Service. 2. Kumari Anisha D/o Gajanan Parate, Aged about 5 years, Occ : Education. Both R/o C/o Kisanrao Selukar's House, Premnagar, Sai Nagar, In front of Pundlikrao Deshmukh House, Nagpur – 2, and Respondent no.1 is mother for herself and also for her minor daughter i.e. respondent no.2. ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ [Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. for petitioner] [Shri R. Ahmad, Adv. for respondents] CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 29.04.2010 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner has filed Criminal Application No.75/2010 contending therein that the wife/respondent No.1 who was out of employment due to termination of her service as assistant teacher has now been reinstated by virtue of the withdrawal of the termination order by the Management and thus she has started now working as assistant teacher and that is the ground on which this Court should entertain this writ petition and modify the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court accordingly. 2 3. Learned Counsel for respondents opposed this writ petition on the ground that this is subsequent event which is being brought before this Court and respondent No.1 – wife wishes to contest the said issue. Since the said fact is coming before this Court for the first time, this Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties at the outset I find that the subsequent event pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner though by way of documentary evidence cannot be taken into consideration for the first time in writ petition and it is for the petitioner to approach the same Court in the appropriate proceedings for putting the said defence of the respondent – wife. I am not inclined to entertain the said amendment application i.e. Criminal Application No.75/2010 as well as the present writ petition. In view of this, I make the following order. O R D E R (i) Criminal Application No.75/2010 is dismissed. (ii) Criminal Writ Petition No.58/2010 is dismissed, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise the said issue of subsequent event in the trial Court at appropriate time. (iii) All points in the petition are kept open. JUDGE ssw