(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Revision Application No. 220 of 2008 Syed Kalim s/o. Syed Ali, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Driver, R/o. Kanchanwadi, Near Mosque, Aurangabad, Taluka & District : Aurangabad. .. Applicant. versus 1. Syed Arifa w/o. Syed Kalim, Age : 22 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. C/o. Sk. Abdul Sk. Wahed, Takli, Taluka : Paithan, District : Aurangabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. Mr. A.P. Piratwad, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.S. Panale, Advocate, for the revision applicant. Mr. R.G. Gore, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 Oral Judgment 1. This revision is filed against the order dated 6th September 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition No. E-177/2006. (2) 2. The respondent no.1 is, admittedly, the legally wedded wife of the revision applicant. She filed the said petition before the Family Court, for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the revision applicant ill treated her on account of his demand of Rs. 50,000/- and ultimately drove her away from his house. In addition to this, she also alleged that the revision applicant had married second time and has been staying with his second wife. She said, she would not be safe if she is sent to cohabit with the revision applicant. The revision applicant denied all the allegations made against him. However, he did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence about his second marriage. The respondent no.1 filed documentary evidence, namely, Nikahnana, of second marriage of the revision applicant. 3. Having regard to the facts of this case, the learned Judge of the Family Court recorded a finding that the revision applicant had willfully neglected his wife. He also recorded a finding that the respondent no.1 did not have any source of income and was unable to maintain herself. Having regard to the admitted income of the applicant, the learned Judge awarded a very modest sum of Rs. 800/- per month, as maintenance, to the (3) respondent no.1. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. In the result, the revision application is dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/kra220