1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.81 OF 2011 (Ghanshyam Devaji Thote .vs. State) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders _ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 2 nd August, 2011. Heard Mr. N.M.Gaidhane, Adv. for the applicant and Mrs.K.R.Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State. According to the Advocate for the applicant, although respondent nos. 2 and 3 are duly served, they are absent. However, Non-applicant no.2 has filed reply opposing the instant application. It is submitted that, under the Right to Information Act, a material information was collected by the learned Advocate for the applicant indicating that the Non-Applicant No.2 remarried with Bandu Vanwas Lambat. To support this submission, reliance is placed upon the copy of voters list issued by the State of Maharashtra for the year 2011 in respect of Bhandara District Assembly Constituency Mandvi, which shows that the name of the voter at Sr.No.21 bears Identification No.SLW 1306620 mentioning the name of Non-applicant no.2 Lambat Nirmala Bandu and the name 2 of her husband as Bandu Vanvas Lambat with address as House No.3/1 in Mandvi Assembly Constituency, Tq. Bhandara also mentioning her gender and age about 42 years. Thus, according to the applicant, he is not liable to pay the amount of maintenance to Non-Applicant No.2 atleast w.e.f. the date of her re-marriage with said Bandu Lambat. It appears in reply dt.16.6.2011 filed on behalf of Non-Applicant No.2 that, to meet this contention of the applicant, Non-Applicant No.2 has mentioned thus towards her explanation : It is most pertinent to note that because the Non-Applicant No.2 wanted to provide educational facility she is residing with the said Mr.Bandu Lambat who happened to be her relative (matrimonial brother). Therefore, for the educational purpose of Non-Applicant No.3, the Non-Applicant no.2 with the consent of said Mr.Bandu Lambat has quoted him to be her husband. She did not deny that her name was mentioned in the voters list as wife of Bandu Lambat. On this ground, it is submitted that the applicant is not liable to pay maintenance to Non-Applicant No.2. This contention can be agitated and canvassed 3 by the applicant by making appropriate application u/s.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleading the change in circumstances, if, according to the applicant, Non-applicant no.2 has re-married and on that count, he is not liable to pay any amount of maintenance to her. For these reasons, since the applicant is at liberty to apply before the learned trial Magistrate i.e. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara since, according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the learned J.M.F.C. Bhandara is adopting coercive steps against the applicant to recover the amount of maintenance by means of issuance of warrant and compelling him to deposit the amount of maintenance, I think that the applicant can make an appropriate application u/s. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which shall be considered by the learned trial Magistrate on its own merits, in accordance with law. Hence, the application is disposed of. It is made clear that no coercive steps be taken till the appropriate application is made u/s. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or until expiry of 15 days from the date of communication of this order, whichever is earlier. JUDGE jais 4 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORS 1. Shri D.B.Yengal. 2. Shri A.S.Parihar. 5 3. Shri M.K.Pathan. 4. Mrs. K.R.Deshpande.