1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 186/2009 Anil s/o Chaburao Jadhav, Age : 29 years, Occu. Service, R/o Shivkrupa, Gevrai Tanda, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...Applicant. Versus 1 Sau. Manisha w/o Anil Jadhav, Age : 26 years, Occu. Household, R/o C/o Rajaram Kanhaji Agale, Nakshatrawadi, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2 The State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. ...Respondents. Mrs. P.V. Langhe h/f Mr. V.R. Langhe and Mr. N.D. Zinzurde Patil, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 8th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed by the applicant husband against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on the respondent wife’s application, seeking maintenance under Section 2 125 of Cr.P.C. and awarding her Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance etc.. 2. The facts of this case are as under. On 12/05/2004, the parties got married. On 14/06/2005, admittedly the respondent wife left company of the applicant. She immediately lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the applicant and his family members alleging harassment over dowry etc.. The cognizance was taken of this complaint and criminal case No. 914/2005 was initiated against the applicant and his family members. While this complaint was pending, soon in 2005 the applicant lodged his marriage petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent wife. The respondent wife appeared and opposed the petition. She demanded interim maintenance and was granted Rs.800/- per month as such maintenance. She even demanded her Stridhan articles, golden ornaments etc.. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights remained pending till 31/06/2006. The applicant withdrew the petition unconditionally. 3. Thereafter, on 07/01/2008, the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Family Court, Aurangabad. On 23/02/2009 criminal case No. 914/2005 resulted in acquittal of the applicant and his parents. As expected, the respondent continued her story of harassment over demand of dowry etc.. As 3 against this, the applicant took up a stand that she left his house on her own accord because she did not want to cook food at the boarding run by his father. He however, did not explain as to why he withdrew his petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He also did not give account for the period between 31/06/2006 till January, 2008. Before the learned judge of the Family Court, the parties did not produce any documentary evidence. The learned judge was left to guess and decide the fate of the petition, on the basis of the oral evidence. The learned judge of the Family Court, had an opportunity to inter act with the parties in person and having regard to the admissions that had come on record during the cross examination, the learned judge accepted the case of the respondent that she was harassed and that she was neglected etc.. The most important reason why the applicant’s defence failed is, his act of withdrawing his petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2006. The learned judge of the lower Court rightly held that the applicant withdrew this petition just to avoid the interim order of maintenance. In addition to this, one would say that the applicant further neglected his matrimonial problem between 31st Jun 2006 till this petition was filed in 2008. For about 18 months he practically did nothing. During those days, admittedly he was facing the criminal case and was probably attending the case. During those days, he 4 could have certainly made attempts to settle the dispute with his wife. Such settlement would have benefited him on two counts, first that he would have got acquittal in the criminal case and second that his wife would have joined him. But his belated attempts to cajole and convince her, to bring her back in his house, have failed. The respondent wife now justifiably does not want to stay with him. The case of the applicant is properly appreciated by the learned judge of the lower Court on the point of alleged harassment, neglect etc.. 4. The next point is the quantum of maintenance. The learned judge appreciated the evidence on record, on this point, specially when he says that the applicant’s oral assertion that his salary is Rs.2,500/- per month only, could be a lie in absence of documentary evidence about salary, he could have produced before the Court. I find nothing illegal in the impugned order. The revision fails. ORDER The revision application stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) ts k/cra186.09/OK 5