1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.24/2010 Petitioner :- Deorao s/o Tukaram Lalsare (original Aged about 47 years, non Applicant) Occ : Service, R/o C/o Maharashtra Industrial Corporation 4th Floor Udyog – Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. Sau. Sindhu w/o Deorao Lalsare (Nos.1 & 2 aged about 41 years, original Applicant) Occ. Labourer. 2. Ku. Vandana D/o Deorao Lalsare Both are R/o Aasi, Tahsil : Warora, Distt. Chandrapur. 3. State Govt. of Maharashtra PSO PS Warora, Chandrapur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.K. Bhangde, Adv. for petitioner] [Shri A.S. Sonare, APP for respdt. No.3] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 09.03.2010 1. This petition is directed against the judgments and orders concurrently recorded by the Courts below, awarding maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the daughter – respondent No.2. 2. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 is not the daughter of the petitioner and the Courts below ought to have considered this material aspect in appropriate manner and failure on their part to do so has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 2 3. I have gone through the impugned judgments and orders and the reasons given by the Courts below. It is seen that the parties were heard and the revisional Court considered the decided cases cited by both the parties and finally came to conclusion that the daughter was entitled to grant of maintenance and that is why the order granting maintenance stood confirmed. 4. If the petitioner had grievance that the daughter was not born from him, the remedy for him lies elsewhere and not under the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are of summary nature. He further states that on the date of filing of the applciation the daughter was minor and now since she has become major and is earning, this Court should consider the said aspect. 5. I do not agree with this since the lis is to be decided as on the date of application and if at all the petitioner has any intention to move, he can take appropriate steps in law. However, it is not possible to consider such request in the proceedings of writ petition. Finally, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE SSW