1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner/husband has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2006 directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.600/- to the respondent/ wife from the date of application i.e. 27.05.2005.

2. By order dated 22.09.2008 rule was issued and interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" was granted pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition.

3. Facts which are relevant to decide this petition are that the respondent/wife had filed Criminal MA No.279 of 2005 u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner in the Court of JMFC, Latur, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each for herself and her son applicant No.2, contending that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 04.05.1999 and from the said wedlock applicant No.2 Pawan was born. The petitioner, his parents and sister abused, starved and caused mental cruelty to her, saying her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parental house to start grocery shop and thus drove her out of the house after beating her and thus refused and neglected to maintain her and her son though the petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain them and she was unable to maintain herself and her son. Said application was partly allowed by the JMFC, Latur by order dated 06.05.2006 and monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- from the date of application i.e. 27.05.2005, was granted to applicant No.2 son only and claim of the respondent/wife was rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the above order of rejecting her claim of maintenance, the respondent/wife had filed Criminal Revision No.76 of 2006 in the Sessions Court at Latur, which was allowed by the Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur by judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 directing the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.600/- to the respondent/ wife/original applicant No.1 from the date of application i.e. 27.05.2005 with further direction to him to pay costs of Rs.600/- through out to her on setting aside the order impugned in the said revision.

5. It is the above said order dated 18.12.2006 passed in the Criminal Revision Application is impugned in the present Writ Petition by the petitioner/husband mainly on the grounds that he never neglected or refused to maintain the respondent and her minor son. The respondent herself left his company. He never ill-treated the respondent for unlawful demand as alleged in the application claiming maintenance. The claim of the respondent for maintenance was rightly rejected by the learned JMFC, as the respondent is Government employee i.e. Anganwadi Sevika/attendant and getting income of Rs.1,500/- per month and the learned JMFC had rightly observed that the respondent is able to maintain herself. It is contended that Revisional Court has wrongly observed that the respondent is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.600/- from the date of application.

6. Mr. Nitin Jagdale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband inviting my attention to the Exh. "B" order dated 30.06.2004 and Exh. "C" list of Anganwadi Madatnis submitted that, respondent is serving as Anganwadi Madatnis/attendant since 2004. Moreover, learned counsel on inviting my attention to the order dated 22.09.2008 of this Court submitted that it is not in dispute that the respondent/wife is working as Anganwadi Madatnis and at the relevant time of said order her salary was around Rs.2,000/- per month. Thus, according to learned counsel, respondent was able to maintain herself. He further submits that, petitioner only possesses 30 R land as mentioned in 7/12 extract (Exh. "A") and therefore it cannot be said that petitioner/husband has sufficient means as held by the Revisional Court. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the above circumstances when the respondent was able to maintain herself and the pe