( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 834 OF 2009 Vikram s/o. Dagdu Waghmare .. Petitioner Versus Puja d/o. Vikram Waghmare and Anr. .. Respondents Shri S.S. Manale, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Manale for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of maintenance of Rs.600/- and Rs. 300/- awarded respectively to respondent Nos. 2 and 1, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nilanga, in Criminal M.A. No. 79 of 2007, decided on 29.11.2008, which judgment and order is further confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2008, decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, on 15.06.2009. 2. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Manale for the petitioner. He argued that the present petitioner has issued notices in 2003-2004 calling upon respondent No. 2 to come and live with ( 2 ) the petitioner, but she failed to do so, and inspite of that order of maintenance is passed. The learned advocate for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment so also record and proceedings of the Trial Court. It is alleged by respondent No.2 in application so also in evidence that after marriage for about six months she was treated well and thereafter when she was pregnant, the petitioner insisted her to undergo abortion to which she was not ready and therefore the petitioner took respondent No.2 to her parental home and left her there. Respondent No.1 was born on 1st August, 2002. Thereafter, respondent No.2 made several attempts for reconciliation, but the petitioner did not respondent. In support of that, there is evidence of respondent No.2 – Sangita. In cross-examination, we do not find anything to show that the statement of petitioner be doubted. On the other hand the petitioner has admitted that respondent No.2 lived with him for six months and for only 15 days she lived properly. He further stated that he was not knowing for what reasons respondent No.2 went to reside at her parental house. He also admitted that for seven years, respondent No.2 was residing with her parents. But, the petitioner did not take any legal action for bringing her back and he did not make ( 3 ) any provision for maintenance of the respondents. The petitioner also admitted that he had gone to Pune for earning livelihood. The cross-examination of the petitioner clearly indicates that he did not even care to know why his wife was residing with her parents. He neither made any provision for maintenance nor any attempt was made to bring her back. It is not say of the petitioner that he wants to bring back his wife. On the other hand respondent No.2 has stated in her statement that she had made many attempts for reconciliation with the help of her mother and brother, but the respondent was not responding. 3. Considering totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not case where writ petition should be entertained after dismissal of revision application. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp834.09