1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2011 PANDHARI BAPURAO BHOYAR ..VERSUS.. SAU. SANGITA PANDHARI BHOYAR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. G. D. Asole, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, Advocate for the Respondent-sole. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 12 th SEPTEMBER , 2011 . Heard Mr. G. D. Asole, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, the learned counsel for the respondent-sole. By this criminal application, the applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 02.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2009 thereby directing the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- to the respondent/wife. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the criminal revision is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. The brief facts giving rise to this application can be summarized as follows : The respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant/husband before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First 2 Class, Court No.2, Chandrapur for grant of maintenance. The learned Magistrate Found that the respondent/wife left her matrimonial house without sufficient reason of her own free will. It was observed by the learned Magistrate that the applicant/ husband has not neglected and refused to maintain the respondent/wife and on the issue whether the wife was able to maintain herself or not, the learned Magistrate observed that the wife had no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself. On considering the nature of evidence for arriving at the income of the applicant/ husband, the learned Magistrate found that the father of applicant/husband has got agricultural land to the extent of 2-3 acres and they earn Rs.15,000/- per annum. The learned Magistrate by observing that the applicant being an able bodied person and accepting the income of an ordinary labour, arrived at a conclusion that the monthly income of the applicant would not be less than Rs.4,000/-, which is a sufficient income to maintain himself and also to provide livelihood to the wife. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 17.11.2008 rejected the application filed by the respondent/wife for maintenance by observing that the the applicant/husband has not neglected and refused to maintain his wife and the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. Being aggrieved by the said order, revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur by the respondent/wife. The learned Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence found favour with the submissions of the wife. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the applicant/ husband treated his wife well for two months after the marriage 3 and thereafter, there was a demand of money. From the nature of evidence, it was further observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the husband used to suspect the character of the wife and he was not providing food to her. The misery of the wife did not stop there. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that on one occasion, the applicant/husband tried to set the respondent/wife on fire. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge also observed that the husband has kept the wife under the same roof, where he kept his mistress. Perusal of the record shows that a birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Chandrapur is placed on record which shows that a child namely Rushikesh is born out of the relationship of the applicant/husband with the other lady and the name of the father is mentioned as Pandhari Bapurao Bhoyar i.e. the applicant. The learned revisional Court, on considering all the evidence found that the situation created by the applicant/husband was of such a nature that the respondent/wife left with no option, but to leave the matrimonial house and to take shelter of her parents for her livelihood. On considering the evidence of the income of the husband and the basic requirements of the wife, the learned Revisional Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent/wife, by judgment and order dated 02.06.2011 and directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the wife from the date of the application. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant/husband has filed this revision application before this Court. With the help of the learned counsel appearing for the 4 parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. I find that the learned Revisional Court on considering the evidence, arrived at a just and proper conclusion and rightly allowed the revision application. It does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and calls for no interference at the hands of this Court. The application is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected. In the result, the criminal revision application is rejected. JUDGE Diwale