1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 682 OF 2006 Ganesh S/o Haribhau Tak, Age : 38 years, Occ : Business, R/o Nutan Vasahat, Infront of Bus Stand, Vinayak Lodge, Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna ..PETITIONER - VERSUS - 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through Ambad Police Station (Copy to be served through Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad). 2. Savita W/o Ganesh Tak, Age : 36 years, Occ : Labourer, R/o Infront of State Bank of Hyderabad Branch Ambad in the House of Gangaram Mali, Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna 3. Vinayak S/o Ganesh Tak, Age : 7 years, minor, U/g. his mother respondent no.1, R/o As above. ..RESPONDENTS Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for applicants Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 4th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 This Criminal Writ Petition is challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant had neglected to maintain the respondents viz; his wife and minor son despite having sufficient means. The Court below directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month each to the respondent no.2 -wife and respondent no.3-son as maintenance from the date of application. Both the Courts below believed the case of the respondent no.2 that after three children the applicant-husband started ill treating the wife on a spacious excuse that she did not satisfy his sexual lust. Both the Courts below further believed her 2 case that the applicant demanded the respondent no.2’s written permission for him to get married for second time. Both the Courts below further believed her case that the applicant ultimately married another woman. The Courts below thus came to the conclusion that the respondent no.2 had justifiable reason to stay away from the applicant. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant tried to contend that the Courts below did not give serious thought to the applicant’s case that the respondent no.2 without having sufficient reason had left his company, and so, she is not entitled to maintenance. I am afraid, this submission is devoid of merits. The Courts below believed the case of the respondent no.2 and having regard to the allegations that the applicant has taken second wife, there is no question of the respondent no.2 agreeing to stay with the applicant. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant then contended that the learned Judges of the Courts below erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 3000/- for two respondents. He said, this amount is too large and the applicant is not in position to pay such amount. He pointed out that the applicant’s Lodging business is not running well and he has still not cleared loan which was obtained for construction of the land on which the Lodge is situated. The amount of maintenance is required to be decided having regard to the factual aspects of the case. The Courts below considered these aspects and fixed the amount of compensation. I find no error in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Thus Petition fails. The interim order passed in this present application stands vacated. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] gas/criwp682.10/ok