1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3328/2009 Applicant:- Devidas Januji Dongre, Aged 43 years, Occu – Service, r/o Ekata Nagar, Jalgaon – Jamod, Tq. Jalgaon, District – Buldhana. ...Versus... Respondents:- 1. Sau. Neesha Devidas Dongre, Aged about 35 years, Occu. : Labourer. 2. Pratham @ Gunwant Devidas Dongre Minor son aged 7 years. 3. Ku. Pallavi D/o Devidas Dongre Minor daughter aged 6 years. [Nos. 2 and 3 minors, under the guardianship of their natural mother i.e. respondent no.1, R/o c/o Vishwasrao Dhondupant Shegokar Anand Watika, Washim Road, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.] 4. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Its P.I. Police Station, Jalgaon Jamod, Distt. Buldana. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri N.R.Saboo, Adv. for applicant] [Shri A.S. Sonare, APP for respdt. No.4] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 05.03.2010 1. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he had filed pursis for withdrawing this application as according to him the case of custody of children filed by him has been dismissed and the applicant is intending to file appeal. In my opinion, the reason given for withdrawal is irrelevant. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant also prayed for adjournment for filing reply. 2 Adjourned is refused. 3. The Courts below have concurrently found that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to maintenance having been neglected by the applicant. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Courts below and I find that the findings are based on evidence. Not only that the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal is also pending against the applicant. The applicant/husband is working in Municipal Council, Jalgaon (Jamod) as a clerk and therefore, he has sufficient means to provide for maintenance to wife and children. There is finding recorded by the Courts below that he has not been maintaining them and that is why the Courts below have awarded Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children. I do not think this quantum of amount of maintenance granted by the Courts below can be said to be on higher side. 4. For all these reasons, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present application to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on any count whatsoever. It is seen that the applicant is working as a clerk in Municipal Council, Jalgaon (Jamod) and therefore, the Municipal Council, Jalgaon (Jamod) is directed to attach salary of the applicant in order to pay maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as per the order of the trial Court. The Municipal Council, Jalgaon (Jamod) shall credit all the amounts already paid by the applicant. With the above observations and directions, criminal application stands disposed of. JUDGE SSW