:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.REVIION APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2005 WITH Criminal Application No.751 of 2005 Shri Rajaram Yashwant Waghmare, .. Applicant Vs Petitioner. Sheelprabha Rajaram Waghmare, .. Respondent Mr N.C.Walimbe, for the applicant. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2005. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2005. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This is a revision application challenging the order passed by the Family Court on 3.7.2004 accepting the compromise-Exhibit-14, whereby the revisional petitioner-husband has agreed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per month to the respondent-wife since 1.4.2004 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent-wife is a divorced wife. She is divorced in 1975. The revisional petitioner is a retired person from Pune Municipal Transport, Pune, and he was initially a conductor and at the time of retirement he was a Checker. He is getting pension of Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of entering into the said compromise the mental condition of the revisional petitioner was not sound :2: :2: :2: and on the pressure of the advocate he had signed the said purshis and accepted it. We find no substance in the contention. Basically, there is no substance in the revision application and, therefore, it is not worth to issue notice on the criminal application for condonation of delay to condone the delay of 116 days. The revision application along with the criminal application is summarily rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) /rrt/db-05/cra33-05/