FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Cri. Writ Petition No. 42/2010 Ambadas s/o Dadarao Aatole, Age : 65 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Shirodi (Kd.) Tq. Fulambri Dist. Aurangabad. ..Petitioner. Vs. 1 Chandrakalabai w/o Ambadas Aatole Age : 46 years, Occu. Labour, R/o C/o Kaduba Kamlaji Kale,Tajnapur Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2 The State of Maharashtra, (Notice to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay,Bench at Aurangabad. ...Respondents. Mr. D.R. Adhav, Advocate for petitioner Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 22nd APRIL, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad in Cri. Revision Application No. 132/2009. The respondent no.1 initiated action under section 125 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Fulambri Dist. Aurangabad in the year 2004. She said that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner and since she could not beget a child in spite of many years of marriage, the petitioner married a second wife. She said, due to harassment at the hands of petitioner, she could not live with him and she stayed with her parents. She said, she was unable to maintain herself and so she made this application for maintenance. The petitioner took up stand that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife. He suggested that Tarabai is his legally wedded wife and Tarabai has delivered a child from him. The trial court recorded evidence of the parties on this point and held giving cogent reasons that it is the respondent no.1, who is the first wife and legally wedded wife of the petitioner and not the other woman by name Tarabai. The revisional Court upheld the finding but held that the amount of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- was rather exorbitant and reduced it to Rs.750/- per month. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner asserted firstly that the court below erred in holding that the respondent no.1 Chandrakalabai is his legally wedded wife. Having perused the judgment of the Court below, I have no doubt in my mind that the finding on this point is, specially finding recorded by the trial court on this point, correct and based on cogent reasons. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also contended that the amount ordered to be paid as maintenance is still exorbitant. But having regard to the reasons mentioned in the orders of the courts below, I have no intention to interfere in this part of the order also. The petition should fail. The petition is dismissed. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/