1 Criminal Revision Application No.164/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2008 Balbhim s/o Ambadas Paithane Age 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o Namalgaon Phata, Taluka and District Beed ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Radhabai w/o Balbhim Paithane, Age 27 years, Occ. Household, R/o Namalgaon Phata, Taluka and District Beed, Now residing at Karchundi, Taluka and District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Shri P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.2-absent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th January, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule was issued on 10.2.2009. 2. Refusal of grant of maintenance to the wife was questioned by her before the learned District Judge at Beed, who 2 Criminal Revision Application No.164/2008 allowed the Criminal Revision by order dated 17.6.2008, fixing maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month payable by husband to the wife, effective from 3.7.2007, said order is impugned in the present revision. 3. The matrimonial relations between the spouse and birth to a female child, now aged 13 years, staying with the husband, studying in 4th/ 5th Standard is not in controversy. 4. The moot question in the matter that has been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class was whether there was sufficient ground for the wife to remain away from the company of the husband. Since the learned Judge did not find any justifiable reason for the wife to keep away, rejected prayer for maintenance. The learned District Judge reversed the same and as stated above, awarded the maintenance. 5. The evidence of the husband demonstrate, in spite of there being a question in the matter to the fidelity of the wife, having seen in questionable characteristic with a named person, he condoned the act and desired that she should join him. The evidence illustrate, the wife refrained to do so, remained away at least from 1998. since the husband even if has said to be questioning her chastity primarily cannot be said to be a fallacious 3 Criminal Revision Application No.164/2008 activity as the wife has indeed prosecuted said known person in terms of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the matter was compounded. 6. When the husband is in a position to maintain the daughter and having sent reconcilators to work out the stumbling block with the wife, it cannot said to be a hype on the part of husband to create evidence to avoid maintenance. The observations of the learned District Judge that the wife was justifiably keeping herself away from the company of the husband more lean to his surmises than the legal position. The observations abruptly are contrary to the record and the learned Judge could not have directed award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 7. Taking survey of the facts, the award of maintenance by the learned District Judge was contrary to record, requires interference. Revision allowed. The order dated 17.6.2008 is rejected. Rule absolute. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE