1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 837 OF 2010 Santosh S/o Kaduba Dawane ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Ushabai W/o Santosh Dawane and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. K.B. Jadhav, advocate for petitioner ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 29th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.07.2009 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ambad and the order dated 22nd July, 2009 rendered by the Revisional Court in Criminal Misc. Application no. 151/2008. He is the husband of the respondent no.1. It is undisputed that the respondent nos.2 and 3 are born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The marriage was performed on 14th May, 2002. The spouces resided together for a couple of years without any serious bickering. It appears that the spouces are incompatible. The wife and the minor daughters filed 2 proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for separate maintenance allowance. 3. The defence of the petitioner was that he was ready and willing to maintain the respondent but the wife had deserted him without any lawful excuse. He alleged that though he owns agricultural land bearing Gut No.130 yet it is a dry land, and therefore, his annual income is hardly of Rs. 7000/- per year. He contended that he has filed Application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide H.M.P. No. 265/2008 against the wife because of her desertion. He expressed inability to provide for separate maintenance allowance. 4. The parties went for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) and adduced the necessary evidence. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is physically handicapped nor he was denied sufficient opportunity of hearing by the trial Court. There are concurrent findings of facts rendered by two Courts below. On evaluation of evidence recorded by the Courts below, it is explicit that there is no perversity attached to the conclusions drawn by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) and the learned Sessions Judge. The scope of Writ Petition is limited in view of the supervisory jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 5. Considering these aspects, no interference is called for. The Petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/criwp837.10