1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 71 of 2000 Date of decision: 7/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/71-00crwp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 71 of 2000 1. Vyanktesh Ramchandra Kulkarni, Age 63 years, Occ. Nil. 2. Umesh s/o Vyankatesh Kulkarni, Age 33 years, Occu. Labour work. 3. Mahesh @ Ramesh s/o Vyankatesh Kulkarni, Age 29 years, Occu. Nil, r/o Rahata, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONERS (Orig.opponents) VERSUS 1. Sow. Usha Vyankatesh Kulkarni, Age 53 years, Occ. household, r/o c/o. Ramabai Govind Upadhye, Age major, r/o Kasar Galli, At & Post Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. (Orig.applicant) 2. State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS ... None for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Shinde, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP, for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7/9/2009 *** 3 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The grant of maintenance to the wife and a child is subject of challenge. 2. There is divorce and same is reflected in paragraph no. 9 of the judgment, giving reference to H.M.P. No.41/1972, in which maintenance amount has been granted to the wife at the rate of Rs.80/- per month in the year 1972. The wife claimed that the amount was not sufficient and, consequently, application was moved. The Courts have recorded that even if she is divorcee, she is entitled to get maintenance. Revision was moved by the husband Vyankatesh. The dismissal of the revision recorded by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dt.20.12.1999, in the situation does not appear to be perverse or erroneous. It is in conformity to the living standard of the parties, the income and the wife expected to maintain herself, even if divorcee, to the standard akin to the husband. Consequently, writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged Interim order vacated. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/71-00crwp