1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1807 OF 2002 Shaikh Sadik S/o Shaikh Ibrahim Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. *** Ms. Vanita H. Sangale i/b Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Azeemoddin G. Ansari, Advocate i/b Mr. Mustafa, Advocate for the Respondent. *** 1. Being dissatisfied by the orders of grant of maintenance by the learned J.M.F.C., confirmed in the revision No.59 of 1998 by order dated 11th September, 2000, the aggrieved husband has filed this application. The point of attack on behalf of the petitioner/ husband is that the learned Court of first instance and Revisional Court, erred in not accepting that there was a valid Talak between the parties. 2. The assessment of evidence carried by both the Courts, in the light of evidence of one of the witness P.W.4 Kazi, who was allegedly present, found that indeed said Kazi was not present at the time of the Talak, as he took the office of Kazi in the year 1993. The register, which he has brought, during the course of evidence, was not matching to the proforma Article-A 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. tendered before the Court. 3. Learned Judge found the Talanaknama also does not inspire confidence as though it is claimed that father of the wife was present, no attempts were made to take his endorsement/ acceptance on the said Talaknama or in the register. Apparently, this is not pre-request for a valid Talak but learned Additional Sessions Judge observed as one of the attending circumstance which do not support the contention of the husband of the Talak. The scenario that it was registered with the Marathwada Wakf Board, on assessment of evidence and analysis of the document, is found to be a blatant after thought. There is no proper evidence to this effect. No question of interference in the order under challenge. Criminal Application is rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:23/07/2009. ans/1807