V.K. Jadhav, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the 4th Jt. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna, in M.A. No.235/2003 and the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 5.4.2006 in criminal revision application no. 138/2005 confirming thereby the order of granting maintenance passed by the Magistrate, the original non applicant-husband preferred this criminal writ petition.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-

The respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage relations are still subsisting. Respondent-wife has filed Cri. M.A. No.235/2003 alleging therein that after marriage she was subjected to ill-treatment on account of non-fulfilment of the unlawful demand and therefore she was constrained to reside with her parents. Petitioner husband though having sufficient means refused and neglected to maintain her. Thus she has filed Cri. M.A. No.235/2003 claiming maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- p.m.

The petitioner husband has strongly resisted the said application by filing his say at Exh.9. It has contended that respondent wife has no just cause to reside separately and claim maintenance. It has also contended that even though petitioner husband has given bona fide offer for cohabitation to the respondent wife, she has failed to come for further cohabitation. Petitioner husband is having no sufficient means to pay separate maintenance as claimed.

3. Both of the parties led their oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. Learned Magistrate by impugned order dated 9.5.2005 partly allowed the application and thereby directed the petitioner husband to pay Rs. 1,200/- p.m. to the respondent wife towards maintenance from the date of application along with costs of Rs. 500/-. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, by impugned judgment and order dated 5.4.2006 in criminal revision application no.138/2005 confirmed the said order. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent wife has no just cause to live separately and claim maintenance. Learned counsel submits that after marriage she hardly resided with the petitioner husband for three months and thereafter started residing with her parents with the contention that she dislikes the petitioner husband. Learned counsel submits that respondent-wife has failed to prove the just cause though burden of proving the same is on her and even then courts below granted maintenance to her. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner husband is earning Rs. 60/- per day by doing labour work and he does not have any agricultural land or Dhaba as alleged by the respondent wife. Learned counsel submits that both the courts below have failed to find out the real income of petitioner husband and in absence of any finding to that effect granted maintenance @ Rs. 1,200/- p.m. to the respondent wife. Learned counsel submits that, thus both the orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his submissions places his reliance on the following cases :-

1. Minati Binati Nayak v. Gouranga Charan Nayak reported in 1995, Cri. L.J. 3569.

2. A.S.N. Nair v. Sulochana reported in 1981, Cri. L.J. 1898.

3. Shabuktabano Ayyaz Inamdar & Another v. the State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2013, All MR (Cri.) 3893.

4. Suresh Prasad v. Urmila Devi & Others reported in 2013, ALL MR (Cri.) 13.

5. Sou. Geetabai Motilal Pardeshi & Others v. Motilal Babulal Pardeshi & Another, reported in 2015, ALL MR (Cri.) 2174.

6. Learned counsel for respondent wife submits that after marriage the petitioner husband started giving illtreatment to respondent wife on account of non payment of remaining amount of dowry of Rs. 5,000/-. She was subjected to mental as well as physical torture for non fulfilment of the said demand. Even the petitioner husband used to a