1 154.09 CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 154 OF 2009 Popat S/o Chandrakant Kedar, Age 29 years, Occu. Labourer, R/o Mangrul, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] Dwarkabai Popat Kedar, Age 27 years, Occu. Household, R/o Nalewadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. 2] Pratima d/o Popat Kedar, Age 3 years, Minor u/g of respondent No. 1, R/o Nalewadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna 3] The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.S. Kudale, Advocate for Petitioner Shri V.H. Solanke, Advocate holding for Shri M.D. Gite Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Shri N.H. Borade, APP for respondent No. 3 / State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 30 th November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Perused Petition along with its annexures. 2 154.09 CWP 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent of parties. 3. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 05-07-2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District Jalna in Criminal Application No. 03/2007 under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and order dated 05-12-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna in Criminal Revision No. 111/2008, confirming the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District Jalna. 4. Relationship between the parties is not disputed by the petitioner. According to him, the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District Jalna to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 his wife and daughter is excessive and smacks of perversity, on account of their being no evidence led by the applicant to substantiate her claim. According to him, the petitioner is a farm labourer and the quantum reasonably could have been fixed at Rs. 900/- and Rs. 500/- for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. 3 154.09 CWP 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 invited the attention of this Court to para No. 14 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District Jalna, and submitted that the averments in the evidence of the applicant in that regard had remain un- controverted in the evidence of petitioner, and as such, the learned trial Court has legitimately drawn the conclusions to fix the quantum of maintenance. 6. Para No. 14 of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, District Jalna, did peruse the 7/12 extracts (Exhibits 17 to 31) produced by the respondent No. 1 herein. In the said para the learned trial Court observed as under :- “ Though in the extract the non-applicant (Petitioner) is shown to be holder of small portion of the land, his father, mother and the brother are shown to be holders of twenty five acres of non-irrigated land (Korad Wahu Jamin), and it is not the say of the non-applicant (Petitioner) that he, his parents and brother were staying separately and that he had not given any evidence in that regard..........................” 7. The non-applicant’s (Petitioner) maternal uncle, his witness No. 2 Shri Babanrao Phunde, in his cross-examination 4 154.09 CWP stated that non-applicant (Petitioner) use to hire jeep on every date on payment of Rs. 2,000/- to 3,000/-. From all these circumstances, the Courts below observed that non-applicant’s (Petitioner) financial position was sound and was physically competent, and as such can not deny his obligation to maintain the applicant (respondent No. 1). Observations of the Courts below are based on the evidence adduced by both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein. 8. No interference is, therefore, warranted. Criminal Writ Petition No. 154/2009 stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* November-11