The present application is filed by the applicant, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st October, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision Application No. 126/1999.

2. Background facts of the case are as under:- The respondents herein filed an application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur praying for maintenance for Rs.500/- for respondent No. 1 and Rs.400/- for respondent No. 2. It was the case of the respondents before the J.M.F.C. that the applicant herein is the husband and since he has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the application for maintenance is filed.

3. The present applicant filed his reply before the J.M.F.C. and resisted the application. It was the contention of the applicant that respondent No. 2 is not the son of the applicant. However, the relations with respondent No. 1 was admitted by the applicant. It was contention of the applicant that he is poor person and he is not able to pay maintenance amount of Rs.700/-. He is working as a driver of private jeep and he is having three and half acres Jirayat land in the name of his father and he has no other income. It was the contention of the applicant that the respondent No. 1 has left the house willfully of the applicant and residing with her father. It was further contended that the applicant has given Talak to the respondent wife on 22.9.1997. Therefore, she is not entitled for the maintenance and therefore, the application of the wife for maintenance should be rejected.

4. Thelearned J.M.F.C., by his order dated 27.9.1999, was pleased to allow the application of the present respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.500/-p.m. to respondent No. 1 uptil the Iddat period is over as a Mehar amount and Rs.250/-have been granted as maintenance to the respondent No. 2 from the date of application.

5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the J.M.F.C., the respondents herein preferred Criminal Revision No. 216/1999, praying for grant of maintenance to the respondent No. 1 till her death or till she re-marries.

6. After hearing both the parties, Criminal Revision No. 126/99 was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 21st October, 2000, directing the present applicant to pay maintenance to present respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. till her death or she re-remarries from the date of application.

7. It is the case of the present applicant that revision was filed by him, being Criminal Revision No. 2/2000 before the learned Sessions Court, Latur, praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1999, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur. The learned Sessions Judge heard both the revisions and dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 2/2000 by common judgment and order dated 21st October, 2000 filed by the present applicant and the revision filed by the respondents was partly allowed.

8. The present application is filed by the applicant, being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 21st October, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No. 126/1999, partly allowing the revision application of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the J.M.F.C. Latur was correct in holding that the divorce/Talak has been executed by the applicant by reducing the same in writing and same has been communicated to the present respondent No. 1 by post, postal receipt is at Exh. 36 and therefore, the J.M.F.C. Latur has directed the present applicant to pay Rs.500/-p.m. to respondent No. 1 as Mehar amount till the Iddat period is over. He further submits that the J.M.F.C. has rightly rejected the claim of the respondents under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the trail Court has committed error in granting the maintenance to respondent No. 2, which was challenged