1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 1989 Abdul Sattaar s/o Abdul Gani, Aged 28 years, Occupation Mechanic, Resident of Badi Darga, Nasik Applicant V E R S U S 1. Shamim Bano w/o Adbul Sattar d/o Taher Baig, Aged Major, Occupation Household, Resident of Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra. 3. The Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra C/o Chambers of Advocate General. High Court Annex Building, Fort, Bombay No.L. Respondents None present of the applicant Mr. K.G. Khader, Adv for the respondent No.1 Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondents No. 2 and 3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. None present for the applicant. 2. This revision is filed against certain orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur, against the applicant for recovering the maintenance amount. 3. Admittedly, the applicant’s wife had succeeded in getting a favourable order in her application filed under Section 125 of Code of 2 Criminal Procedure bearing M.A. No. 15 of 1987, which she had filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur, against the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant did not challenge this order in any Court. Thereafter, admittedly, the respondent / wife started execution of the order for recovering the amount of maintenance, and in the process, the impugned orders were passed. The applicant challenges these orders on the ground that subsequent to the disposal of M.A. No. 15 of 1987, he lawfully divorced the respondent No. 1 / wife and had also paid Meher and Iddat amount to her. He said, in view of this change in the situation, he should be relieved of the burden of paying of maintenance amount and the impugned orders issuing distress against him should be withdrawn. I am afraid, this request cannot be considered even though the Law has been settled through the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, delivered in March, 2001. From the fact situation of this case, what is possible in this case is that the applicant may now make an application under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure for getting the order of maintenance suitable amended in view of the change circumstances and in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Unless the order passed against the applicant under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is suitably amended by following due procedure laid down under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned orders cannot be set aside. The revision stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/cra/45/89/20910