( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 716 OF 2009 Usha w/o. Kishan Kakade .. Petitioner Age. 27 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Harinagar, Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. Versus Kishan s/o. Shankar Kakade .. Respondent Age. 32 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Deshmukh Galli, Parli Vaijinath, Tq. Parli, Dist. Beed. Shri M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Rashmi P. Gaur, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 20.11.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions ( 2 ) Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Revision Application No. 65 of 2007, decided on 15.05.2009, whereby he set aside the order of maintenance of Rs. 500/-, awarded to present petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2006, decided by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Purna, on 03.04.2007 and remanded the matter for fresh evidence. 3. Heard Shri M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate for the petitioner and Miss Rashmi Gaur, Advocate for the respondent. 4. Present petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Purna, alleging that she married the respondent on 18.06.2003 and went to reside at his house at Parali. For 3-4 months the petitioner was treated well and thereafter the respondent started to illtreat her. Demand of Rs. 75,000/- was made for purchasing auto-rickshaw. However, parents of the petitioner were unable to comply with the demand and therefore the respondent and members of his family started illtreating the petitioner. She was beaten and kept starving. Somehow, the parents of ( 3 ) the petitioner managed to pay Rs. 20,000/- and requested for treating the petitioner well. But, even thereafter, the illtreatment continued and ultimately on 21.05.2006, the petitioner filed complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and members of his family. Since then the petitioner is residing at Purna with her father. The respondent has agricultural land and getting income of Rs. 1 lakh. On the contrary the petitioner is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, application was made for getting maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month. 5. Present respondent filed written statement at Exh. 10 and denied the contentions regarding demand of dowry or illtreatment. According to him this is a false application. The petitioner does not want to look after old parents of the respondents and therefore she left house of the respondent at her own. It is further stated that the respondent is working as Anganwadi Sevika and earning Rs. 1500/- per month. On the other hand the respondent was having snake bite on 09.09.2003. Since then he has been always ill and unable to pay maintenance. ( 4 ) 6. In support of their case the petitioner and respondent examined themselves on oath in the Trial Court. Considering their evidence, the Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- by order dated 03.04.2007. As against the said order, Criminal Revision Application No. 65 of 2007 was filed. 7. Shri Nerlikar, advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to the judgment of the Revisional Court and pointed out that in para 5 the Trial Court has observed that the advocate for present respondent submitted that due to illness of the respondent, the respondent was unable to come to Court and therefore he could not adduce any evidence. The Court further observed that “from the undisputed facts that the present petitioner is sick person and from the documentary evidence that has come on record that original applicant who is present respondent is working as an Anganwadi Sevika and earning salary, it is necessary to have evidence on the said points on record”. Therefore, the Revisional Court held that even though there was no evidence on behalf of the respondent, the matter was remanded. It is also observed that the advocate for the respondent ought to have taken ( 5 ) steps for recording evidence of the respondent, but instead of that he straight way given pursis of closure of evidence. It is unfortunate that Revisional Court did not peruse record and proceedings of the Trial Court and observed what is contrary to the record. It is not undisputed that the present respondent is ill and unable to work. It is not that the advocate for the respondent in Trial Court has filed pursis Exh.18 without there being any evidence on behalf of respondent. Affidavit of the respondent is at Exh.17. Not only that but the respondent was cross-examined at length by the advocate for the petitioner on 20.03.2007. So, it is not a case that due to alleged illness of respondent, he could not lead any evidence. At least, the advocate for the revision petitioner (who is present respondent) ought not to have made such submissions without verifying record. He made wrong statement. The Revisional Court accepted such submissions without verifying the record. This Court feels that such practice of making false submissions and getting orders from Court should be discouraged. In my opinion, the order of remand was totally unjustified. It was unjust not only for the present writ petitioner, but also it is unfair to the advocate of the present respondent, who appeared for ( 6 ) him in the Trial Court. 8. In the circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order of the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside. 9. Miss Rashmi Gaur, Advocate for the respondent argued that the document produced in Revision Petition indicates the respondent has sold his property. It is also stated by Adv. Miss Gaur that respondent has also received one certificate regarding the petitioner having been employed as Anganwadi Sevika. Said certificate subsequently produced in the Trial Court on 22.06.2009 shows that it is dated 07.11.2008. Copy of sale deed produced with list is dated 31.01.2008, which was subsequent to the decision by the Trial Court, but pending the revision petition. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Revisional Court is set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court is hereby restored and confirmed. The respondent, if advised so, is at liberty to make application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. ( 7 ) 11. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crwp716.09