Bombay High Court
Kalimullah Samiullah Shaikh vs State Of Mah And Ors on 14 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 14.cr.wp.11.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2006
Kalimulla s/o Samiulla Shaikh,
Age : 33 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Balepir Galli, Latur,
District Latur.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1 The State of Maharashtra.
2 Tahaseen Begum w/o Kalimulla Shaikh,
Age : 25 years, Occupation : Household,
R/o Nath Nagar, Latur,
District Latur.
3 Ruman d/o Ralimulla Shaikh,
Age : 3 years, minor u/g of
Respondent No.2. R/o as above.
...RESPONDENTS
...
None for Petitioner.
APP for Respondent No.1/ State : Shri S.G.Karlekar.
Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3 : Shri S S Choudhari.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 14th June, 2016
Oral Judgment:
1 When this matter was called out on 07.06.2016, none
appeared for the Petitioner. The matter was adjourned for this date. Even
today, none appears for the Petitioner.
*2* 14.cr.wp.11.06
2 The Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated
01.11.2004 passed by the learned 2 nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur
by which the application filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed. The Petitioner is
directed to pay Rs.700/- per month to Respondent No.2 and Rs.300/- per
month to Respondent No.3.
The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 28.11.2005 delivered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Latur vide which Criminal Revision No.88/2005 filed by the
Petitioner has been rejected.
4 Shri Chaudhari, the learned Advocate, submits on behalf of
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is
extremely limited. The same would be further limited in the face of
concurrent judgments of the lower Courts. The findings on facts arrived at
by the Trial Court and sustained by the Revisional Court cannot be
interfered with by this Court only because a second view is possible.
5 He further submits that oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties was properly considered by the learned Trial Court.
*3* 14.cr.wp.11.06
The business activity of the Petitioner was established before the Trial
Court. Respondent No.2 was a destitute lady and has no income to
support herself and Respondent No.3. He, therefore, submits that after
considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court concluded
that the amount of Rs.700/- per month deserves to be paid as
maintenance allowance to Respondent No.2 and Rs.300/- in favour of
Respondent No.3.
I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have gone through the impugned judgments
and the contentions/ pleadings of the Petitioner.
7 It was brought on record before the Trial Court that
Respondent No.2/ wife was driven out of the marital home on the ground
that she failed to satisfy the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the Petitioner
and his parents for starting a business of Audio Cassette shop and for
travelling to Saudi Arabia. The evidence brought on record has been
discussed by the Trial Court in paragraphs 7 to 10 of it's judgment. I find
that the Petitioner had failed to lead any evidence before the Trial Court
despite sufficient opportunities granted to him. The evidence of
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 went unchallenged. There was no rebuttal to the
evidence of Respondent Nos.2 and 3/ Applicants. The business of the
*4* 14.cr.wp.11.06
Petitioner was proved before the Trial Court. Based on such evidence, it
was concluded that the Petitioner is required to pay maintenance
allowance to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
8 It cannot be ignored that the maintenance allowance of
Rs.700/- and Rs.300/- per month in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3
respectively, was granted in 2005. This Court had declined interim relief
to the Petitioner. The said amount is a paltry amount and I, therefore, do
not see any reason to cause any interference even on the proportionality
of the maintenance allowance granted by the Courts below.
9 Since the impugned judgments are neither perverse nor
erroneous, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgments. This Criminal Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore,
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
