IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1310 OF 2001 Balaji S/o Dagdu Kamble, Age:35 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Lakhangaon, Tq. Ausa, District: Latur. ... PETITIONER. [ORIG.NON-APPLICANT] VERSUS 1. Laxmibai W/o Balaji Kamble, Age: 32 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Gadwad, Tq. Latur, District: Latur. 2. Manisha D/o Balaji Kamble, Minor u/g of Respondent No.1. 3. The State of Maharashtra. (Copy to be served on P.P. High Court, Aurangabad). ... RESPONDENTS [R. NO.1 & 2 ARE ORI. APPLICANTS.] *** Mr. B. R. Sontakke Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: 28th July, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Sontakke Patil extensively. Perused the record of the learned J.M.F.C. as well the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Application No. 92 of 2000 by judgment dated 9th February, 2001. 2. The matrimonial controversies between the husband (Petitioner herein) and the wife led to filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 528 of 1998 seeking allowance of maintenance by invoking provisions of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, was entertained by the learned Judge, by order dated 26th June, 2000 thereby directing the Petitioner Balaji to pay an amount of Rs.300/- to the wife and Rs.200/- to the child Manisha. 3. Mr. Sontakke Patil would argue, the learned Judge IIIrd J.M.F.C., Latur has not considered the notices in proper perspective and arrived at misconclusion of the months and dates and hence, a perversity. Giving all sorts of concessions to the counsel for the husband, I do not find any perversity in the learned Judge making observation about the facts disclosed in notice to be not in consonance to the evidence adduced on behalf of the husband. There is no waywardness or deliberate deviation by the learned Judge from what is good. 4. Then comes the husband's intention to get the wife joined in the matrimonial home by issuance of notice dated 7th October, 1994 through Advocate and also the subsequent notice dated 14th October, 1999. The parties were not sailing well. There are criminal prosecution. Even civil litigations are initiated. The wife was threated at the behest of the husband. The matter was reported to highest authorities of police. It may be the wife is bent upon to make the application, the fact is it is not a hallow allegation made by the wife without there being substance in it for want of proper care and maintenance to her. It is again difficult to digest that the wife is bent upon to harass husband as the future of the daughter also cannot be obliterated. It is not the anger nursed by the wife as carried to the extremity, it is unbearing behaviour of the husband which has added to the miserable situation. The desire to maintain the wife through Advocates notice was merely a show, to avoid legal obligation beeset to pay allowance to wife and child. 5. The husband must maintain his wife akin to his standard. It was canvassed that the wife is in service as an Anganwadi Servant/ Teacher. Reference to her deposition to this extent, from her other part of evidence, was tried to be coined. This portion is to be read with other part, and need not be segregated to attribute independent earning. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment in para 18 has recorded the wife having accepted to be in service. However, in the next line he has also recorded that her services are terminated. If the husband feels, the wife is still in service or sum for monthly allowance is hefty and disproportionate, nobody has prevented him to take such recourse or place particulars by calling the competent persons to prove. Failure on the part of the husband to carry such exercise, will not be a concession available to the husband to stake that it was the wife who was required to produce such documentation of service or termination. 6. The wife claim she was required to remain a parasite to husband for want of monthly maintenance. In the above set of facts, the Revisional Court did not commit any error in law in confirming the order of learned J.M.F.C. I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. The application rejected. 7. Heard. Needless to add, husband's remedies under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code are unbridled. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:28/07/2009. ans/1310