Common Judgment:

1. Both the applications and the above referred writ petition are being disposed of together inasmuch as they arise out of common judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.104/2007 and 138/2007 interse parties.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed criminal revision Petition No.104/2007 filed by Ranjeeta and others. She was granted maintenance allowance @ Rs.800/- per month from date of order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Whereas, request for enhancement of maintenance allowance in respect of the children was turned down and the criminal revision petition No.138/2007 filed by Deepak was dismissed.

3. Admittedly, Ranjeeta and Deepak entered wedlock on 17th June 1997. It was a registered marriage under provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The couple resided together at residential house of Deepak after the marriage. They were blissed with twins, namely, Raj and Deepti, on 01.08.1998. The marriage still subsists though the spouses have fallen apart. Both the minor children are with their mother - Ranjeeta. The husband - Deepak is an advocate. He practices in civil and criminal courts at Parbhani. Mother and foster father of Ranjeeta are residents of Nanded.

4. The wife and children filed application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for separate maintenance allowance. They asserted that Deepak and his family members started ill-treatment to the wife on account of non payment of dowry. She was ill-treated by her husband. He had beaten her up and lastly, on 12th June 2005, attempted to kill her. He drove her out of the matrimonial home. She complained to police but could not get protection. His family members and Deepak too do not like the children. He has refused to maintain them. He is having a posh residential house in Shivaji Nagar locality, Parbhani. He earns Rs.25,000/- per month, as a practicing lawyer. She and the minor children are, however, unable to maintain themselves. Consequently, they sought separate maintenance allowance @ Rs.1,500/- per month.

5. By filing his written statement (Exhibit-6), the husband resisted the application. According to him, he never ill-treated or neglected the wife and children. He asserted that she left his house on her own accord in the morning of April 29th, 2000, along with gold ornaments and her personal effects. She insisted that he shall reside with her mother at Nanded. He was not ready to do so. He contended that the wife is employed in a spinning mill as well as in a cooperative bank. He also contended that she is able to maintain herself because she gets emoluments of Rs.10,000/- per month. Her foster father, by name Kishanrao Varkhinde is a politician and director of Raigad Nagari Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Nanded. She and her mother are also directors of the said cooperative credit society. It is for such reason that they wanted him to migrate to Nanded and to start practicing in the courts at Nanded. He did not agree to the proposal for such migration. Therefore, she left his company without any substantial reason. He denied the averments that he earns monthly income of Rs.25,000/- from his legal practice. He submitted that his monthly income

.is approximately Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/-. He was ready and willing to maintain the wife and children, yet they filed false proceedings against him. On these premises, he denied liability to pay maintenance allowance to them.

6. At the trial, the wife entered witness box in support of the application. The husband also entered witness box along with his bother’s wife - DW-2 Pooja in support of his defence. On merits, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the wife left company of the husband without any substantial reason. She was able to maintain herself. The learned Magistrate, therefore, dismissed the application to the extent of the claim of the wife - Ranjeeta. The application was partly allow