1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 161 of 1999 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/161-99crwp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.161 OF 1999 1. Suryakant Dashrath Rudraksha, Age 36 yrs, Occ. Labour Work, r/o. Haregaon, Tal. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER (Ori.Opponent) VERSUS 1. Latabai Suryakant Rudraksha, Age: 33 yrs., Occ. Labour work, c/o. Bhanudas Mahadappa Ghongade, r/o. Tandali Wadgaon, Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.applicant) ... None present for the petitioner and respondent. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7/9/2009 ... 3 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Counsel for respective parties absent. 2. Award of maintenance in favour of wife Latabai by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Application No.86/1995, was tested in Criminal Revision Application No.29/1997, by the husband. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dt. 30th Jan.,1999, did not interfere in the order of grant of maintenance and hence, the husband is before this Court in writ petition. By order dt.May 4th, 1999, there was Rule made returnable in 2nd week of June, 1999 and Rule on interim relief. 3. On 10.7.2008, the matter was on Board. Indeed, it flowed from 9th July, 2008 and since none appeared it was adjourned to 10th July as stated above. By the said order, as a last opportunity, it was adjourned to 17th July, 2008. However, no participation. 4. The husband canvassed that he never ill-treated the wife. She has volitionally left for parental abode without any 4 reasonable excuse. According to the husband, since he was employed in a hotel, same was disliked by the wife. However, the wife established, husband made her life miserable and she was driven to stay separately. 5. Considering the nature of allegations and status of the parties, the award of maintenance recorded by the 4th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar, confirmed by the revisional Court, I find there is no illegality or any perversity therein. The income of the husband is the root cause to be considered at the material time. The Court presumed that he was drawing at least Rs.50/- per day which had its multiplication in monthly income and, hence, the award of maintenance was at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. I do not see any infirmity. Consequently, Criminal Writ Petition No.161/1999 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim protection vacated. 5 ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/office/161-99crwp