IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 483 OF 1996 Datta S/o Gangadhar Sarje, Age: 32 years, Occu.: Labourer, R/o Umri, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. Sow. Shashikalabai W/o Datta Sarje, Age: 27 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Umri, Tq. Bhokar, at present R/o Telangwadi at post Joshi Sangvi Via Osmannagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. 2. Balaji S/o Datta Sarje, Age: 5 years, Minor u/g of his real mother Shashikalabai (Respdt.No.1,) R/o as above. 3. The State of Maharashtra. Copy to served through A.P.P. Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS. *** Mr. Hemant Pawar, Advocate i/b Mr. A. H. Kapadia, Advocate for the Petitioner. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: 28th July, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The husband, aggrieved by the order of maintenance to the wife at the monthly allowance of Rs.300/- and Rs.150/- to the son, has challenge the same on the ground that the summons was not served in the manner it is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The husband is an agricultural labour and has no such means to keep compliance of the order under challenge. The matter was taken before the learned Additional Session Judge at Nanded by Criminal Revision No. 223 of 1994. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the respective counsel, by his order dated 18th July, 1996, dismissed the criminal revision and directed him to pay Rs.200/- towards costs of the petition to the wife. These two orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. There cannot be a quarrel on the procedure or manner of service of summons in terms of section 62 to 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 62 conceived how the summons is to be served by police officer or by any officer appointed. 3. Section 65 in term indicate that after exercise of due diligence as indicated in section 62, 63 or 64 of Criminal Procedure Code, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides. The Court, after making enquiry may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper. 3. The learned Judge has considered about service of summons and avoidance thereof by the husband and having satisfied himself, based on the report and endorsement, has accepted the same as due service. Observation of the learned Judge, about due service of the summons on the husband, in the set of situation, will not be a violation of terms indicated in section 65 of the Criminal procedure Code. Nothing more is warranted than what the learned J.M.F.C. has done. 4. The learned Revisional Court, having verified the record, considered the legal position, rejected the revision and I do not see there is any mistake on the part of either the J.M.F.C. or on the part of Revisional Court. There is proper service to the husband. He has tried to avoid the service by raising fictitious accusations of non-service. 5. The allowance of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the wife, to the extent of Rs.300/- and Rs.150/- to the son based on husband's income and living standard then prevalent, in the set of facts, does not appear to be exorbitant. 6. Writ petition dismissed. The earlier orders are vacated. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:28/07/2009. ans/48396