( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2010 Santosh s/o Bhika Sarode PETITIONER VERSUS Sunita w/o Santosh Sarode & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. R.A. Tambe, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders rendered by the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court in the proceedings for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, vide Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 230/2006 and Cri. Revision No. 27/2009, respectively, whereby he has been ordered to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents, in sum of Rs. 600/- p.m. for the respondent No. 1, Rs. 400/- p.m. to the respondent No. 2 and Rs. 300/- p.m. to the respondent No. 3. 2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. ( 2 ) 3. There is no dispute about the fact that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was performed on 15th June, 2001. The case of the respondents was that after a couple of years, the petitioner started giving ill- treatment to the respondent No.1 - wife. He used to trouble her. He used to tell her that he disliked her and wanted to perform second marriage. He used to beat her. Allegedly, he assaulted her and drove her out of the house on 20th March, 2006 while she was pregnant. He is owner of agricultural land being sharer of the land held by the joint Hindu family of himself and his father. He also earns income by doing other work and is able bodied person. He is dealing in business of milk vending. Therefore, the respondents sought recovery of separate maintenance. 4. The petitioner alleged that he made attempt for the reconciliation, but the respondent No. 1 was not ready to reside with him. He alleged that there was no matrimonial cruelty to the respondent No. 1. He further alleged tht the respondent No.1 has deserted him without any cause and as such, he denied legal liability to pay separate maintenance allowance. He denied that he earns sufficient income and can ( 3 ) provide for separate maintenance allowance. 5. Upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner and on going through both the judgements of the Courts below, it is amply clear that there are concurrent findings of facts. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of desertion of the wife. It has come on record that the petitioner suspected fidelity of the wife. He asserted that the respondent No. 3 is not the daughter born out of the wedlock in relation with the respondent No. 1. Such kind of allegation made by the petitioner about chastity of the respondent No. 1 would amount to the matrimonial cruelty and, therefore, she is justified in residing separately. It is difficult to say that though the petitioner is having suspicion about chastity of the wife and has declined parenthood of the respondent No.3, yet, he was ready to maintain them. He admitted, unequivocally, during course of the trial that he is responsible to maintain the respondents. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that both the Courts did not properly appreciate the question of financial ability of the petitioner to provide for separate maintenance allowance. I do not agree. It appears that the ( 4 ) petitioner stated that he was earning the livelihood by doing labour work. He is young and able bodied person. It appears that he and his father are joint holders of an agricultural land. Needless to say, he has got sufficient means being the able bodied person and having capacity to earn the livelihood. The learned Sessions Judge held that the children would require sufficient amount for education and other expenditure. The quantum of maintenance allowance awarded to the respondents cannot be regarded as excessive or on much higher side. In any case, having regard to the concurrent findings of the Courts below, there is hardly any scope for entertaining the petition and particularly in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of which the scope is quite limited, in view of "Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil" 2010 (7) SCALE 428. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criwp803-10 ( 5 )