1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2010 Shaikh Raffik s/o Shaikh Usman, Aged 26 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o Ghosapuri, At Post Malpuri, Taluka and District Beed Applicant V E R S U S Shaikh Asma w/o Shaikh Raffik, Aged 19 years, Occ. Household and Education, R/o Ghosapuri, At Post Malpuri, Taluka and District Beed. At present r/o Plot No. 6, Dhartidhan Housing Society Near Gadiyavihar, Aurangabad. Respondent Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Respondent though served, absent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision application is made against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad (henceforth referred as the learned Judge) in Petition No. E – 67 of 2009, filed by the respondent / wife for maintenance, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Their marriage took place on 25th December, 2006, but in March, 2007, the applicant / husband allegedly started harassment over illegal demands of Rs.1,00,000/-. He allegedly harassed her and assaulted her. She made complaint to police station. The matter even was referred to Counseling Center run by Police at Beed. Lastly, she was allegedly beaten up and was driven away from the matrimonial house. 2 3. The applicant / husband denied the allegations and asserted that he treated the respondent / wife kindly and even allowed her to take further education up to 12th standard. He added that his father gave loan of Rs.75,000/- to the father of the respondent. He said, the respondent’s father returned Rs.50,000/- from the said loan, but the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- is still unpaid. He, however, admitted that he has married second time, because the respondent / wife did not join him for cohabitation despite his efforts. The applicant / husband’s Advocate asserted that his client could prove that his case would fall within the four corners of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He asserted that his client has proved that the respondent / wife has refused to stay with him without any sufficient reason. I am however not convinced of this submission. The learned Judge appreciated the facts that the respondent / wife had gone to police station to make complaint against the applicant / husband, and therefore, had an ample reason for refusing to stay with him. The factum of second marriage of the applicant has worsened the situation further. There is no substance in the revision and it shall fail. The revision application stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra/149/10/28910