V.M. Deshpande, J.

1. By the present Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19th March, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shirpur, Dist. Dhule in Cri. M.A. No. 379 of 1991; together with the common Judgment and Order dated 26th September, 2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 1997 and in Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1997. I have heard Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. S.H. Jadhav, Advocate h/for Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S.A. Ambad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra/Respondent No. 3.

2. Marriage between petitioner-Nanasaheb and Respondent No. 1 -Vidya was performed on 16th May, 1990 at village Bahal, Tal. Chhalisgaon. Their marital tie is still in subsistence. Mrs. Vidya delivered male child-Respondent No. 2 Vijay on 17th November, 1990. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were constrained to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance allowance against the petitioner vide Cri. M.A. No. 379 of 1991. It is specifically stated in the application that Respondent No. 2 was born premature in the month of November, 1990. This fact was intimated to the petitioner however, just for the reason of premature delivery, the petitioner made scurrilous allegations by issuing notice dated 3rd June, 1991. It was further stated in the application that said notice was replied by reply-notice dated 20th June, 1991 (Exhibit-46) and the petitioner was called upon to take respondent No. 1 from her parents house and also to make arrangement for their maintenance. Inspite of receipt of said notice, no steps were taken requiring the respondents to file proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as wife, son and husband.]

3. On being summoned, the petitioner submitted his Written Statement and he has denied the paternity of Respondent No. 2-Vijay. He submitted that Respondent No. 1 established sexual relations with unknown person prior to her marriage and from the said relations. Respondent No. 2 was born. He submitted that due to such birth of Respondent No. 2, his status in the society has lowered down and, therefore, both respondents are not entitled to claim any maintenance allowance from him.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shirpur, Dist. Dhule vide his Judgment and Order dated 19th March, 1997 partly allowed Cri. M.A. No. 379 of 1991 and granted monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/- to Respondent No. 1 Vidya from the date of filing of an application however, the learned trial Magistrate rejected the claim of maintenance for Respondent No. 2 - Vijay, on the ground that the petitioner has proved that Respondent No. 2 is born to Respondent No. 1 through illicit relations.

5. The aforesaid judgment leads filing of two Criminal Revision Applications before the Revisional Court. Petitioner -Nanasaheb preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 1997 challenging the order of maintenance allowance granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 -Vidya; where-as Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1997 was preferred challenging the correctness of order rejecting claim of maintenance of Respondent No. 2 - Vijay. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule vide his common Judgment dated 26th September, 2002 decided both Criminal Revision Applications.

6. By the common judgment, the learned revisional court dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 1997 filed by present petitioner - Nanasaheb; where-as Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1997 was allowed by the revisional court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/- to Respondent No. 2 Vijay from the date of application.

7. Present Writ Petition is thus against dismissal of Criminal Revision Application filed b