1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 51/2010 DNYANESHWAR SUKHDEO PAKHARE VERSUS CHHAYA W/O DNYANESHWAR PAKHARE AND ANOTHER. CORAM ; A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date :16th September, 2010 ORDER 1 This revision application is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-263/2008. This petition was filed by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the present applicant. The respondents were legally wedded wife and a minor son of the applicant. 2 The facts leading to the litigation are as under:- The marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 took place in 2003. Soon thereafter, the applicant and his family members started subjecting the respondent No.1 wife to cruelty on account of unlawful demand of money. Despite meeting such demands from time to time, the ill treatment continued. In the mean time, the respondent No.1 delivered a male child. However, due to ill treatment and assaults, the respondent No.1 finally left the applicant’s house on 02/05/2008. At that time, she could not take her young one year old son with her. She was constrained to file an 2 application before the Criminal Court, Aurangabad for getting custody of her son. Eventually, she succeeded in getting her son’s custody. Thereafter, she made this application on 29/05/2008. 3 The applicant opposed the application and denied the allegations made against him. He took up a stand that respondent No.1 did not like to stay at the village where he has his house. He said, the respondent No.1 insisted that they should stay separately at Aurangabad which is a City. A dispute arose out of this controversy and he said, he tried to settle the dispute through the mediation of a Tanta Mukti committee of his village but the talks failed. He said, the respondent No.1 left his company on her own accord and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. 4 The learned judge of the trial Court, recorded depositions of both; the applicant and the respondent No. 1. The learned judge however, did not accept the stand of the applicant and held that in view of the incident that took place on 02/05/2008, when the respondent No.1 was required to leave her matrimonial house leaving behind her young son, go to prove her case. The learned judge of the Family Court, also discussed the evidence in respect of the quantum of maintenance and standard of living of the parties. I found nothing incorrect in such finding. The applicant thus would fail to make out a case for admitting this revision application. The revision application fails. 3 ORDER The revision application stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/crirevn51.10j/