1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1796 of 2010 [Moreshwar Mangaldas Dhenge Vs. Sau. Sunita Moreshwar Dhenge and another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.R. Bhishikar, Adv., for the applicant- petitioner. Mr. R.S. Nayak, APP for respondent-State. ---- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th March, 2011. 1. On 24 th February, 2011, this Court had issued notice before admission. Petitioner has not paid Bhatta. This Court, therefore, called the petitioner to argue the case for admission- hearing. 2. Heard. 3. Order under challenge is passed by the 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class granting maintenance of Rs.17000-00 per month to the respondents and as confirmed by the Sessions Court in revisional Judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2009. 4. Admittedly, husband-petitioner had filed a Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution. Claim for restitution was dismissed. The husband has, however, taken the same plea that wife is not willing to co-habit, and has voluntarily abandoned the company. 5. The testimony of respondent-wife, as rendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, is not touched upon or challenged by the petitioner. He, however, wants to rely upon a passing reference contained in the cross- examination of wife recorded in Hindu Marriage Petition. According to petitioner, said statement indicates that wife is unwilling to join company. 6. The evidence, as adduced before the Civil Court deciding the Hindu Marriage petition, was appreciated in favour of wife and against the husband, and his petition for restitution was dismissed. 7. Now, the same evidence cannot be read, though urged upon by the petitioner to mean what he wants. 3 8. The request is strange and untenable in law. 9. In the circumstances, petition has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau|