... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2528 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2528 OF 2004 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2528 OF 2004 Shri Dattatray Jyoti Adsule ...Petitioner Vs. Sau Sumitra @ Suma Dattatraya Adsule & Anr. ...Respondents Shri V.V. Purwant with Shri Amit Borkar for the Petitioner. Shri K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and the Advocates appearing for the Respondents. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the Judgment and Order dated 09th September, 2004 passed by the Sessions Court in a Revision Application. The Revision Application was filed by the Respondent No.1 for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30th September, 2003 passed by the learned Magistrate by which the Application made by the Respondent No.1 for grant of monthly allowance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected. The Application was rejected on the ground that the Respondent No.1 has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner. The finding on ... 2 ... this aspect recorded by the learned Magistrate was reversed by the impugned Judgment and Order and the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to the Respondent No.1. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that in Revision Application the finding on the aspect of existence of marriage could not have been interfered with by the Revisional Court. He submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the existence of marriage. He submitted that there is no legal evidence available on record to show that there was a legal and valid marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. 4. I have considered the submissions. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the notice dated 29th September, 2001 issued by the Respondent no.1 to the Petitioner asserting that the Respondent No.1 was his wife. On 07th November, 2001, the Application under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 was filed by the Respondent No.1. Though the notice was received by the Petitioner on 24th September, 2001, he replied to the same only on 22nd November, 2001 denying the factum of marriage after the Application ... 3 ... under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 was filed. According to the case of the Respondent NO.1, the marriage was solemnised in the year 1969. The Sessions Court has noted that the Respondent No.1 and her brother have deposed about the performance of necessary religious ceremonies at the time of marriage. After considering the oral evidence on record and after considering the fact that the Petitioner gave reply to the notice only after the Application under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 was filed, the Sessions Judge has accepted the contention of the Respondent No.1 that there was a marriage between the Petitioner and herself. Considering the income of the Petitioner, monthly allowance at the rate of only Rs.500/- p.m. has been fixed. 5. It cannot be said that the impugned Judgment is perverse when monthly allowance of only Rs.500/- is awarded. No interference is called for in a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Petition is rejected. 6. It is obvious that the findings which are recorded in the impugned Judgment and Order are in a proceedings of summary nature and therefore, the said ... 4 ... findings are recorded obviously for a limited purpose of considering the prayer made by the Respondent No.1 for grant of monthly allowance. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE