Digambar S/O Gopinath Mane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6106 Bom

                                                                                        1                                   Cr.W.P. 380.2016


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                            910 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2016



                                              DIGAMBAR S/O GOPINATH MANE

                                                                     VERSUS

                                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                                                                     ..........

                                              Mr. R.B.Shingare h/f Mr. V.P.Latange,
                                              Advocate for Petitioner.
                                              Mr. K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for R - 1 - State.
                                              Mr. N.V.Gaware, Advocate for R - 2.
                                                                     ..........
                                                          CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.
                                                          DATE              : 16th AUGUST, 2017
                                                                     ..........


                       ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order

dated 22/01/2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1/2015

by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Additional Sessions

Judge, Ahmednagar, the petitioner/original non applicant

No. 2 has preferred this Writ Petition. By the impugned

Judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside

the Judgment and order dated 27/11/2014 passed in

2 Cr.W.P. 380.2016

Criminal Misc. Application No. 96/2013 by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Karjat and allowed the application

seeking maintenance. For the sake of convenience, the

parties are described as they were described before the

trial Court.

2. The respondent No. 2/original applicant filed

application u/s 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking

maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. The

petitioner/non applicant contested the application. The

trial Court has rejected the application by observing that

the applicant has failed to prove that she was neglected

and deserted by non applicant. Being aggrieved, the

applicant challenged the order before Sessions Court. By

the impugned Judgment, the Sessions Court allowed the

application and granted maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per

month from the date of application. Being aggrieved the

non applicant/petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

respondent No. 2 as well as learned A.P.P. for respondent

No. 1 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/original non

3 Cr.W.P. 380.2016

applicant has assailed the impugned Judgment and order

with contention that the reasons and findings recorded by

the trial Court were based upon due appreciation of

evidence and there was absolutely no illegality and

impropriety in the Judgment so as to interfere in exercise

of revisional jurisdiction. By referring the Judgment and

order passed by the trial Court, learned counsel contended

that the trial Court has closely analyzed the evidence and

arrived at a finding that the applicant has failed to prove

that non applicant has neglected and deserted her.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No. 2 supported the Judgment and order

passed by the revisional Court. It is pointed out that

since the year 2006, the applicant was residing at her

parents' house. The non applicant made no efforts to

fetch her back. In cross examination, non applicant has

categorically stated that he is not ready to cohabit with

applicant. He has further submitted that non applicant

has made reckless allegations against the applicant which

has caused mental harassment.

6. Having appreciated the submissions advanced

in the light of Judgment and order passed by the trial

4 Cr.W.P. 380.2016

Court as well as revisional Court, I am of the view that no

case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the

revisional Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is

admitted position that since the year 2006 applicant was

residing with her parents. No efforts were made on the

part of non applicant to fetch her back. In the cross

examination, non applicant has admitted that he is not

willing to cohabit with the applicant. Non applicant though

alleged in his reply filed to the application that the

applicant was suffering from mental illness and she was

treated for such illness but failed to prove this fact. If the

applicant was suffering from mental illness, then it was

the duty of non applicant to have taken her care. The

overall conduct of non applicant is more than sufficient to

draw inference that he has deserted the applicant. In this

view, the finding recorded by the revisional Court that the

applicant has proved that non applicant has neglected to

maintain her and deserted the applicant can not be

termed as contrary to evidence on record. In this view,

the reasons and findings recorded by the revisional Court

calls for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

7. Looking to the fact that non applicant is

proved to be doing job and earning Rs. 16,260/- per

5 Cr.W.P. 380.2016

month, the maintenance awarded @ Rs. 1,000/- per

month can not be termed as exorbitant. In this view, no

case is made out to admit the petition. Accordingly, the

petition is dismissed.

[V.L.ACHLIYA, J.]

KNP/Cr.W.P. 380.2016