1 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.25 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2010 Mohd.Javed s/o.Mohd.Ekbal Age-25 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Samtanagar, Opp.M.K.Bekari, Near Sillekhana Telephone Office, Aurangabad APPLICANT (Original respondent) VERSUS Asma Kausar W/o.Mohd.Javed Age-21 years, Occu-Household, R/o.C/o.Mohd.Kalim Mohd.Salim, In front of house of Ali Manjila Parvez Jafari, Shaha Bazar, Aurangabad RESPONDENT (Original petitioner) Mr.M.K.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.A.N.Ansari, learned counsel for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 19/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. This revision application is filed to challenge the judgment and order dated 21/11/2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in Petition No.E-62/2009, by which the learned Trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C., by 2 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.25 of 2010 awarding monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs.1,500/-. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The challenge in this revision is to the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court on 2 grounds that the learned Judge, Family Court has not considered the aspect that the respondent is residing at her own at her house and the attempts of the present applicant to maintain her wife i.e. the present respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent, which is still pending, but this fact is not considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. 3. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the application was filed by the present respondent before the Lower Court on 11/02/2009 which came to be decided on 21/11/2009. The application filed by the present applicant for restitution of conjugal rights was filed subsequent to the filing of this petition, which clearly indicates that to give bye-pass to this revision application filed by the respondent, that petition was filed by the present applicant. Second aspect required to be considered that even though the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed subsequent to the filing of this revision application, but since last 2 years, there is no progress in that petition and still that petition is waiting for its finality, which goes to show the attitude of the present applicant in prosecuting the petition 3 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.25 of 2010 filed under restitution of conjugal rights. Next aspect required to be considered about the averments that the wife is residing away from the present applicant at her own. In para no.25 of the judgment impugned, the learned Judge, Family Court has discussed about the illtreatment given to her at the hands of the present applicant. It is further observed that the present respondent had filed a complaint with Mahila Takrar Niwaran Samiti and on that basis, an offence was registered against the petitioner for an offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the IPC. It is observed by the learned Judge, Family Court that these facts stated by the respondent remains unchallenged in the cross examination of the applciant/present respondent, which goes to show that the respondent have a ground to stay away from the revision applicant. So far as the observations of the learned Lower Court about the quantum of maintenance is concerned, no doubt, no direct proof has come before the Court about the income source of the applicant, but for the reasons stated in para no.28 of the judgment impugned, this Court find reference about the type of business, the revision applicant is doing. But deliberately he has not disclosed his income before the Lower Court. 4. Considering the overall effect, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Lower Court, which require any interference at the hands of this Court. In view of this, revision application stands dismissed at the stage of admission. It is hereby clarified that even though this revision application is dismissed at 4 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.25 of 2010 the stage of admission, in case the revision applicant succeeds in the petition filed by him, which is still pending before the Lower Court, his right to apply for modification in the order passed u/s. 127 of the Cr.P.C., is not taken away and he is entitle to avail that remedy, if advised. With this clarification, revision application stands disposed of. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.rev.25-10