1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 92 of 2009 Kishor Vasantrao Gorde, aged about 39 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Morshi, District Amravati. .. PETITIONER .. Versus .. 1. Sau. Archana Kishor Gorde, aged about 29 years, Occupation – Household, 2. Ku. Vaibhavi Kishor Gorde, aged about 6 years, minor through --- (Deleted) guardian mother, respondent No.1. Both R/o Shendurjana Ghat, Tq. Warud, District – Amravati. 3. State of Maharashtra, through J.M.F.C., Warud, Tahsil-Warud, District-Amravati. .. RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Maldhure, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.P. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondent No.1, Ms. R.A. Wasnik, A.P.P. for the State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED :- 15 th DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2009 passed by the District and Sessions 2 Judge, Amravati in Criminal Revision No.161/2007, thereby dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner herein confirming the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Warud dated 18-8-2007 in Misc. Criminal Application No.15/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- The marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 23rd April, 2000. Out of wedlock child born on 23-5-2001. It is the case of the petitioner herein on 10-2-2003, the respondent/wife on her own accord moved into a parental house with child. On 20-11-2006 the respondent issued legal notice through her Counsel to the petitioner thereby claiming that the petitioner should make settlement with the respondent No.1 and in case of failure, the petitioner be responsible for all the consequences. On 28-11-2006 the petitioner replied the said notice. 3. The respondent herein filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 15/2007 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warud for maintenance. 4. By judgment and order dated 18-8-2007 the Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class, Warud allowed the application and directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.800/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife, Rs.400/- to respondent No.2 from the date of filing of application along with cost of Rs.500/. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Revision Application No.161/2007, which came to be dismissed on 21-1-2009. Hence, this writ petition. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has deposited Rs.7,100/- towards maintenance of respondent No.2. The petitioner is depositing the remaining amount of maintenance awarded to respondent No.2. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount to respondent No.2-his daughter as granted by the lower Court and is not challenging the order to that extent. However, since the respondent No.1 deserted the petitioner for no valid reason and there is no refusal or negligent on the part of the petitioner to maintain his wife, respondent No.2, the order directing the petitioner to grant maintenance to the respondent No.1 is challenged in the petition. 6. The learned Advocate further submitted that the findings recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warud on the 4 point that whether the petitioner/husband has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent No.1 is concerned, the Court has not recorded the proper findings and by general observations case of the respondent No.1 is accepted that the petitioner/husband has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent No.1/wife. The learned Advocate invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The learned Advocate further submitted that the petitioner is working as a Labourer and he has no source of income to pay the maintenance amount to respondent/wife and this aspect has not been considered by the Courts below. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The learned Advocate for the respondent invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Courts below and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts and more particularly, when no case is made out by the petitioner to upset those concurrent findings of facts. The learned Advocate further submitted that, the petitioner has agricultural land and same has been duly proved 5 by the respondent/wife and to that effect the findings are given by the Courts below. Therefore, the learned Advocate submits that this is not a case where any inference is called for by this Court. 9. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and also learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P for the respondent/State, perused the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below and I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out the case for interference so as to upset the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below. 10. On careful perusal of the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, both the Courts have recorded the findings that the husband/petitioner herein has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent No.1/wife, the respondent No.1/wife is not able to maintain herself and to the respondent No.2 and further the present petitioner has enough source of income to pay maintenance amount Rs.1,200/- per month. 11. Therefore, on careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Courts below, I am of the considered view that no case is 6 made out to upset the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. On independent scrutiny of the rival contentions and on perusal of the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below would clearly show that, the petitioner herein has sufficient source of income to pay maintenance amount of Rs.1200/- per month. 12. The revisional Court in paragraph 11 of the judgment has considered the aspect of cruelty by the husband to the wife. The Court has recorded that assertion of the wife about the cruelty, went unimpeached during the course of cross-examination. Therefore, I do not think this is a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction, hence writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE adgokar 7