1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLN. No.1243/2010 Ghasi Salman Gourve -vs- Munnobi W/o Ghasi Gourve and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.M. Gupta, counsel for applicant. Mr.Bhagwani, counsel for respondent. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2010 . The impugned order was passed by the Court below directing that the applicant be taken in custody on account of non-payment of arrears of maintenance amount is subjected to challenge in this application. On consideration of application tendered by the wife, the Trial Magistrate directed that the applicant be taken in custody in pursuance to order of imposition of sentence of simple imprisonment for 12 months passed against him. It is further ordered by the Trial Magistrate that in the event of deposit of maintenance amount by the applicant during the aforesaid period, he may be released. The order passed by the Trial Court was subjected to challenge at the instance of applicant in Criminal 2 Revision Application No.34/2010. The Revisional Court on consideration of all relevant aspects, modified the order and the applicant-husband was directed to be taken in custody and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 20 days on account of default in payment of maintenance amount of each month. I have perused the order passed by both the Courts Below. It is argued that the Trial Magistrate has passed the order without proper application of mind. The Trial Magistrate has issued the order in exercise of powers under Sec.128. It is stated that such an order is not permissible by taking recourse to provisions of Sec.128, but the proper provisions in respect of exercise powers by Magistrate is Sec.125 (3). The order which is passed on consideration of merits, cannot be said to be bad in law or vitiated on account of mentioning of a wrong provision. The order otherwise is legal and proper, as such, no interference is called for in the application. The application, therefore, stands rejected. JUDGE KHUNTE