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 CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2007. Bharat Baliram Mule. ..Petitioner. versus Archana Bharat Mule & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Anand S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 14TH AUGUST,2008. : 14TH AUGUST,2008. : 14TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the Advocate for the Petitioner. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Magistrate in favour of the first respondent-wife by which the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month. The challenge is also to the order passed by the Sessions Court by which the said order has been confirmed. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner -husband is that all along the Petitioner was ready and willing to co-habit with the first Respondent. The second submission is that the income of the Petitioner is at highest Rs.1,600-1,700/- per month and he has to pay rent of his residential accommodation at the rate of - 2 - Rs.600/- per month. He, therefore, submitted that the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.800/- per month is exorbitant. 3. I have considered the submissions. The first Respondent-wife deposed that the Petitioner was working in a particular Company and he is drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. According to the case of the Petitioner, he was doing labour work and getting the amount of Rs.1,800/- per month. However, the Courts below have observed that the Petitioner could not adduce any evidence regarding his earning. In any case, both the judgements show that the Petitioner came out with the case that his monthly income is Rs.1,800/-. It is, therefore, obvious that the amount of Rs.800/- per month by way of maintenance is reasonable. So far as first submission regarding the readiness and willingness of the Petitioner to co-habit with the first Respondent is concerned, the said case is not accepted by the Courts below on consideration of oral evidence on record. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that hearing of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, - 3 - 1973 was delayed due to the repeated adjournments taken by the first Respondent. From the judgement of the Revisional Court, I find that this contention was not specifically urged before the said Court. Hence, this contention cannot be raised for the first time in this Court. 5. No case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]