1 CRI-WP-1543-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1543 OF 2010 Balaso Vishnu Shinde ..Petitioner Vs Sou.Ratnamala Balaso Shinde and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Dilip Bodake, for petitioner. Mr.P.J.Shinde, for respondent no.1 to 4. Ms.Usha Kejriwal, APP for respondent no.5. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 5 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 29 th May, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Koregaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.136 of 2006 as also the judgment and order dated 17 th April, 2010 passed by the Extra Joint Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Revision Application No.143 of 2009. By these judgments, the Courts below 2 CRI-WP-1543-10.sxw partly allowed the application made by respondent nos.1 to 4 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Courts below declined to grant maintenance to the first respondent – wife and awarded maintenance to respondent nos. 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of application i.e.19 th October, 2006. 2] In support of this petition, Mr.Bodake submitted that the petitioner is disputing paternity of respondent nos.2 to 4. He further submitted that the petitioner has no paying capacity as the suit between him and his brother for partition though decided in his favour, he has taken out Darkhast proceedings and the same is pending. He is not in a possession of landed property. Having regard to his age i.e.61 years, he is not in a position to pay maintenance. 3] Mr.Shinde, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 supports the impugned orders. He submitted that the petitioner has not paid anything pursuant to the orders passed by the Courts below. He further submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 CRI-WP-1543-10.sxw 4] I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. As far as the issue of paternity is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge considered this aspect in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned order. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not established the fact that respondent nos.2 to 4 are not born from him to the first respondent. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on appreciation of evidence. I do not find that the Courts below have committed any error while answering this aspect. In so far as the capacity to pay the maintenance is concerned, in paragraph 19 of the impugned order, the Sessions Court has considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that respondent nos.2 to 4 are entitled pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. I do not find that the maintenance awarded by the Courts below is unreasonable. 5] Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]