1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1065 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : March 11, 2010 1. Heard Advocate Shri Gajanan Kadam, for the petitioner and Shri A.A. Khan, Advocate for the Respondents. 2. Rule. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order of maintenance passed by J.M.F.C. (10th Court), Nanded in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.35 of 2006 on 14.1.2009 as modified by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal revision No.70 of 2009 decided on 18.8.2009. 2 4. Original Application No.35 of 2006 was filed by present Respondent No.1 for herself and on behalf of her two daughters namely, Respondent No.2 Asha and original applicant no.2 Jayashree for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. The said application was allowed by the learned Magistrate by granting Rs.800/= p.m. to Respondent No.1 and Rs.600/= p.m. to each of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Asha and Jayashree) towards their maintenance. However, in revision, the learned Sessions Judge considered the admission given by Respondent No.1 that Jayashree was residing with father-present petitioner and as such, he cancelled the maintenance awarded to Jayashree, but maintained the order of maintenance insofar as present Respondents are concerned. 6. It is argued before this court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid Rs.50,000/= towards full and final satisfaction of maintenance of Respondents and in order to support his submission, he has submitted that one Mansing was examined by Petitioner on that aspect. However both, the trial court and 3 the Sessions Court, have observed that when after litigation and long dispute, one time lumpsump is paid towards maintenance, such amount would not be paid without there being any documentary evidence or writing. So, the courts below did not believe oral evidence regarding full and final settlement regarding maintenance by one time payment. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or error in the said finding. 7. It is also clear from the trial court's judgment that 7x12 extracts were produced on record to show that the land and crops taken therein by the present petitioner. It is worth noting that Respondent No.2 is admittedly minor and taking education and hence, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is excessive or exorbitant. 8. Not being satisfied that it is a case requiring interference by this court, writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. pnd/criwp1065.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)