1 Cr.Apln. 4398.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 918 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4398 OF 2016 KARAN S/O DAGDOBA VAIRAGHAD VERSUS SATYABHAMA W/O SUDHAKAR WAIRAGHAD & ANR. ............................. Mr. S.B.Bhapkar, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. P.N.Kutti, A.P.P. for R – 2 - State. .............................. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2016 ............................. ORAL ORDER : 01. This application is filed to challenge the Judgment passed by the Sessions Court, by which the Revision Application filed by the applicant is dismissed and the Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the application filed by non applicant u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed and the applicant is directed to pay ` 3,000/- per 2 Cr.Apln. 4398.2010 month to the non-applicant towards maintenance. 02. The claim of the non applicant [wife] is opposed by the applicant [husband] on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of the applicant. The applicant claims that he married with another lady named Vandana. The sub-ordinate Courts, after considering the evidence on record, have concurrently recorded the finding that non-applicant [wife] has established that marriage between the applicant and the non applicant was solemnized. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the applicant has not led any evidence to substantiate his claim that he is married with another lady-Vandana. After going through the impugned Judgment, I find that the finding of fact recorded by the sub-ordinate Courts on this point is proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. 03. The learned Advocate for the applicant has argued that the Magistrate has determined the amount of maintenance as ` 3,000/- per month 3 Cr.Apln. 4398.2010 without there being any evidence on record regarding the income of the applicant and his capacity to pay that much amount. The submission is not in consonance with the facts on record. The non- applicant [wife] has placed on record documentary evidence i.e. 7/12 extract to show that the applicant owns agricultural land. It can not be said that determination of amount of maintenance is without any basis. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment. 4. Criminal Application stands dismissed. No costs. [Z.A.HAQ, J.] KNP/Cr.Apln. 4398.2010