cwp98.09.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2009 Harids Sambhaji Meshram :: PETITIONER -:Versus:- Vimal Haridas Meshram and The State of Maharashtra :: RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................................. Shri S. V. Dangore, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D. M. Kale, A. P. P. for respondent No. 2. None for respondent No. 1. ............................................................................................................................. CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 22 of 2002 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wani being application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself. The said application was decided by the learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 30/9/2006. The learned J.M.F.C. ordered payment of maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent. Against this order, the petitioner filed revision in the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada. The said revision came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 13/8/2008. Against these two orders, present petition is filed. cwp98.09.odt 2/3 3. Admittedly, there is concurrent finding regarding payment of maintenance by the petitioner to the respondent. According to the petitioner, he had not married with the respondent but he had married with one lady by name Shantabai. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent had married with one Nago Kumre. 4. Insofar as the question of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, the evidence of respondent is self speaking and since the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast on him that respondent was married with one Nago Kumre, the evidence of the respondent that she was married to the petitioner is required to be accepted. According to the petitioner the respondent has stated in her evidence that she got married with the petitioner in the year 1974 and a daughter was born out of wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1970. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, if the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place in the year 1974, there is no question of a daughter being born in the year 1970. 5. It is to be noted that the respondent has stated in her evidence that a son was born at the first instance, who died and thereafter a daughter was born. To my mind, the figure appearing in the evidence as “1970” is apparently a typing mistake. Even otherwise, the application for maintenance is filed by the respondent for herself and not for her daughter. Hence, the said point is irrelevant. cwp98.09.odt 3/3 6. So far as the stand of the petitioner that the respondent had married with Nago, there is no such evidence before the Court, and therefore, both the Courts were right in discarding the said stand. 7. Both the Courts have accepted the word of the respondent that the income of the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner has not been able to produce any specific evidence in the nature of documentary evidence to show as to what is his monthly income. The petitioner having failed to discharge the said burden, the Courts below have accepted word of the respondent and have fixed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the respondent. 8. Having considered the entire evidence and keeping in view the concurrent finding on both the points, namely; relationship between the parties and awarding maintenance to the respondent, this is not the case where this Court should interfere in those findings in its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE wwl