1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1396 OF 2007 Shaikh Ayyub s/o Sk. Chand ..APPLICANT VERSUS Salmabee, divorced wife of Shaikh Ayyub and anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the applicant; Mr K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 27th November, 2009 PER COURT : This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Nanded, dated 19.1.2007 rendered in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 75 and 76 of 2006, revising the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, IInd Court, Nanded dated 20.3.2006, partly allowing the application and directing the present applicant to pay Rs.40,000/- to the respondent herein. The Sessions Judge while allowing the revision filed by the present respondent enhanced the amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 2 50,000/- towards a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be paid to the applicant therein. 2. Undisputedly, the application filed by the present respondent was under section 3 (1) (a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Trial Court upon appreciating the evidence of the parties passed the aforesaid order by which the application filed by the respondent herein was partly allowed and the present applicant was directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the applicant therein as a fair provision. In addition thereto, the present applicant was directed to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the applicant therein. The present applicant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, IInd Court, Nanded dated 20.3.2006 filed Criminal Revision Application No.75 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge at Nanded. The non applicant herein also being aggrieved by the order filed Criminal Revision Application No. 76 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge at Nanded. The revisional Court decided both the revisions by the common judgment dated 19.1.2007. By virtue of the judgment of the revisional Court, the revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the present applicant and partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and as pointed out by me above the amount of Rs.40,000/- came to be revised to Rs.50,000/- by the revisional Court. 3. I have heard Mrs Ansari, learned Counsel for the applicant. It is 3 contended before me by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nanded did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid application as the respondent herein had earlier filed proceedings before the Court at Kallamnuri. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant the aforesaid proceedings had been filed before the Court at Nanded with an avowed object of harassing the present non applicant. Since it was claimed by the respondent herein in the application that she was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nanded, the application filed by her before the Court at Nanded was perfectly competent. There was no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the two Courts below. 4. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present application and the application deserves to be dismissed. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/-, which has been permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent. In that light of the matter, application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap1396.07