:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.736 OF 2001 Sou. Leela @ Nanda S. Nanaware and anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. Shri.Sunil B. Nanaware and anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Nitin Ghawre i/by M.D. Angal for the Petitioners. Mr.G.S.Godbole for the Respondent No.1. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 09.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Advocates present. 2. This petition is filed by the wife for quashing judgment and order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara. The facts of the case are that the petitioner Nanda was married with the respondent No.1 in the year 1991 at Village Bawadhan, Tal. Wai, Dist.Satara. According to the wife when she went to reside with her husband, after 4 to 5 years the respondent No.1 and her in laws started ill-treatment and were demanding money. She had informed to her parents. They promised to provide money if available. During this period she conceived and delivered one baby. She claimed that during the pregnancy neither her husband nor his parents gave proper medical treatment. :2: After one month of the delivery the Respondent No.1 came to her parents house and threatened her if she did not bring money he will perform second marriage. She on her own therefore, returned to the house of her husband along with her father. Again ill-treatment was started on account of demand of money. When her mother visited her husband’s house there was quarrel and she was beaten in front of her mother by iron pipe. In such circumstances, she returned to her parents house. Her husband did not provide her food and clothings. 3. In these circumstances, in the year 1998 wife filed an application for maintenance under Section-125 of the Cr.P.C. She stepped into the witness box. Defence was put to her in her cross examination and she denied the same. On behalf of the defence, respondent led his own evidence and ultimately J.M.F.C. Phaltan vide his order dated 25.10.1999 granted maintenance of Rs.400/-p.m. to the wife and Rs.300/-p.m. to the child. The husband preferred revision before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara and the Revisional Court allowed the revision partly maintaining the order of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner No.2 and set aside the order granting maintenance to the petitioner No.1-wife. 3. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order I find that the reasoning given for setting aside the order :3: granting maintenance to the petitioner No.1 by J.M.F.C. Phaltan are improper and incorrect. The Sessions Judge has not referred to the testimony of the petitioner pertaining to the ill-treatment given to her prior to the point of time when she left for her delivery. He has stated that her evidence after she came back on her own, ill-treatment and beating continued has also not been taken into consideration. The Sessions Court has observed that the husband has given public notice for divorce in the year 1996 and raised query why the maintenance application was filed after delay of two years in the year 1998. In the revisional order the Sessions Court lost sight of the fact that the wife was without any maintenance would not immediately rush to the court and commence a litigation. There is a finding that no attempts for reconciliation were made. This is belied by the evidence of the petitioner herself who states that after delivery she went back on her own accord. Her evidence that in presence of her mother she was beaten by iron pipe was not referred. In my view, this is a fit case where petition needs to be allowed. The petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)