1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2010 1. WAMANRAO S/O RISHI BANSOD PATIL R/O CHALKS COLONY, KAMPTEE RD, NAGPUR .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. SAU. DAMYANTIBAI W/O WAMANRAO BANSOD PATIL AND 2 ORS R/O NR. GIRLS HOSTEL, KUSHINAGAR, P.S. JARIPATKA, NAGPUR 2. VIDYA D/O WAMANRAO BANSOD PATIL R/O NR. GIRLS HOTEL, KUSHINAGAR, P.O. JARIPATKA, N NAGPUR 3. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. JARIPATKA, NAGPUR .. RESPONDENT/S Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri C. F. Bhagwani Adv for applicant. Shri K. Soloman Adv for respondents 1,2. Shri D. P. Thakre APP for respondent 3. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 21 st JUNE, 2010. . Heard. This revision is preferred against the order passed 2 by Family Court whereby Family Court directed the present applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 1200/- to the respondent no.1 wife. Respondent no.1 wife and her daughter filed a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court. 2. It was alleged in the said petition that the respondent no.1 and her daughter were turned out of the house by the present petitioner in the year 2006 after almost 50 years of married life. It is further alleged that the respondent no. 1 and 2 are now residing with some other relatives. Application was opposed by the present petitioner. 3. Learned Judge of the Family Court recorded the evidence and found that there was a refusal on the part of the applicant and the present petitioner had sufficient means to pay the maintenance. I have gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It appears that the learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the evidence with regard to the refusal to pay maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence of refusal to maintain and neglect and in fact it is the wife who has withdrawn from the society of the applicant without any just cause. 3 4. I was taken through the evidence recorded before the learned Judge of the Family Court wherein the petitioner has admitted that Bebibai was residing with him as servant. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this is the precise cause for turning the present respondents out of house. If Bebibai was serving there was no reason for her to reside with the petitioner. The fact that she is residing with the petitioner clearly suggests that present respondents have been turned out of the house because Babibai is now living with him. Learned Judge of the family Court has appreciated these facts property. 5. It was then contended that wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. It appears that the wife has admitted in evidence that she owns one acre of land. There is nothing to suggest that income from that one acre is sufficient to maintain herself. On the other hand the evidence as recorded by the learned Judge goes to show that present petitioner husband has sufficient means to pay maintenance inasmuch as he admits of owning certain property including motorcycle and certain plots. All this evidence has been rightly considered by the Family Court. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family 4 Court. It does not suffer either from any illegality or impropriety. There is no substance in the revision. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 5 6 7