1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 350 of 1999 Date of decision: 7/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/350-99crwp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 350 of 1999 Babasaheb s/o Baglane, Age 36 yrs, Occ. Service, r/o. Kakadhira, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...PETITIONER (Orig.Oppt.) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Godabai w/o Babasaheb Baglane, Age 30 yrs, Occ. Household, r/o. Gajipur, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS (No.2 ori.appt.) ... None for the petitioners. Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP, for respondent/State. Mr. N.S.Patil, Adv., h/f Mr. S.M.Godsay, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7/9/2009 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Counsel for the husband Babasaheb, petitioner herein, called. Absent. Mr. N.S.Patil, Counsel, holding for Mr. S.M.Godsay, Counsel for respondent no.2 i.e. wife present. 3 2. Rejection of maintenance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.384/1994, dt.30th March, 1996, is tested by the wife before the Sessions Judge, at Beed, and learned Sessions Judge allowed the contention directing the husband for payment of Rs.300/- per month. Said order is subject of challenge. 3. By order dt.10th Jan.,2000, the husband was directed to deposit Rs.9,000/- within a month and then interim relief in terms of prayer clause D. The amount so deposited is withdrawn by the wife, respondent no.2. 4. The conditions prevailing as of the revision petition No.64/1996 or on the date of judgment dt.24.6.1999 or awarding maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.300/- have now seen virtually a sea change. The escalation in prices and the consequential addition and enhancement of the income of the husband cannot be sidetracked. 5. Before the learned Judge the wife Godabai examined herself with two other witnesses Lahanu and Dinkar, the Medical Officer. The wife had sustained injuries which supported ill- treatment. The revenue record of the husbands holding was produced. 4 6. The husband has examined himself and witness Datta Shinde. 7. It was canvassed by the husband that the wife was living separately without any sufficient reason or that she refused to live with the husband and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, negatived her contention. 8. However, since the learned Sessions Judge found the conduct of the husband to be deplorable and that he has ill-treated the wife. Not only that, the husband has performed second marriage with one Meenabai. Taking recourse to these facts, the award of maintenance by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. No interference is called for. Criminal Writ Petition No.350/1999 is dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/350-99crwp