bsb 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2007 Deelip Eknath Choudhari ... Petitioner v/s 1.Smt.Rupali Deelip Choudhari & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Dnyaneshwahar Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 12TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the J.M.F.C. directing the payment of maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 to 4. He has also challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court confirming the order of the J.M.F.C. Respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are their children. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have been awarded compensation of Rs.1300/- Rs.700/-, Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- respectively. 2. When the matter came up for admission on 17.4.2008, the petitioner was in arrears of payment of maintenance to the tune of Rs.84,500/- till 1.4.2008. He was, therefore, directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- by 30.4.2008. 2 The petitioner has not complied with this order. A statement was made on 18.2.2008 by the advocate for the petitioner on instructions from the latter that he would restrict the challenge to the order pertaining to the maintenance for respondent No.1 and that he was willing to accept the order regarding the maintenance payable to his children i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4. It appears that the petitioner has not paid any amount after depositing Rs.16,000/- on 16.8.2006 and paying Rs.5000/- on 23.10.2007. 3. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. The Trial Court has rightly held that the aforesaid amounts must be paid to the respondent No.1 and three children under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Cogent reasons have been given by both the Courts below for arriving at this conclusion which, in my opinion, need not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction. 4. Petition dismissed.