1 CRI.WP.NO.252/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.252/2010 (Ashok s/o Baliram Indurkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .Mr.Upendra B. Bilolikar, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. VH Dighe, APP for State. Mr.Amit Mukhedkar, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 2 & 3. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 31 st January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. Rule. Heard finally. 2) long-drawn controversies between the spouse has led to the wife getting maintenance, she is apparently staying away from the petitioner/husband from at least 25 to 30 years with her two children. The petitioner, as father, desires maintenance from his two sons and filed proceedings. Learned JMFC, did not concede to his prayer and by order dated 5th May, 2008, rejected, the challenge to the same in Criminal Revision Application No.128/2008, did not yield any result and hence the present prosecution. 3) The petitioner, as father, submits that he is in a private employment and paying maintenance to his wife. Last such payment of maintenance in consolidated form was of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner did not venture to prove that indeed his private service/employment makes him of little consequence to live with same dignity and honour in which his sons are living. 4) The wife and the sons contended that the petitioner is a moneyed person, having three luxury buses; partner in two 2 CRI.WP.NO.252/2010 firms and got married with another lady, having begotten two children. 5) There are no virtual denial to the above factors from the petitioner, however, same is also not established by the respondents, the sons. 6) Taking survey of the facts, both the Courts did not yield to the urge of the petitioner for maintenance. On analysis of the evidence, I do not see any perversity on the part of both the courts in arriving at the conclusion, the orders are in tune with the record, call for no interference. The Writ petition is sans merit, dismissed. No costs. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/