1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO. 269 OF 2005 Sunil @ Mohan s/o Vishwanath Bhagat .. Petitioner (orig. respondent) VERSUS Sau. Rekha w/o Sunil @ Mohan Bhagat and others .. Respondent (orig. petitioner) ..... Shri M.M.Joshi, advocate for the petitioner Shri V.R.Naik, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4 Shri B.J.Sonwane, APP for respondent no.5 ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, J. DATED : 21st August, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Heard. 2 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 vehemently argued that it is not the mistake of the husband, but it is on her own volition the wife did not cohabit with the husband and due to her non-cooperation the parties landed themselves in court proceedings. 3 The present impugned order arises out of second proceedings initiated by the wife bearing M.A. No. 302 of 2002. Earlier M.A. No. 75 of 1988 was filed by the wife which was amicably settled. Thereafter the parties stayed together for about 7-8 years. Therefore, earlier order passed for maintenance was never executed as the parties had compromised the issue. Both the courts have concurrently held regarding grant of maintenance to the children, but the Trial Court refused maintenance to the wife. The revision filed by the wife was allowed. An amount of Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance was ordered in the year 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. 4 The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the facts of the case, evidence before the court and after appreciating the same reached conclusion that the wife also deserves to be granted maintenance It seems that the husband had taken efforts by approaching one forum for persuading the wife to stay with him as it is submitted by the learned counsel that the wife stays at Jalna and the husband was staying at Mumbai. The 3 petitioner is not denying the relationship as husband and wife. There is no such evidence that the wife has any source of income. In this view of the matter, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, I do not find that any interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. It would be in the interest of the children and the parties concerned if they re-unite and lead their life happily. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) dbm/crwp269.05