1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2006

Sanjiv Pandurang Kulkarni .. Applicant

Versus

Pallavi Sanjiv Kulkarni & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr.Dilip Bodke for applicant

Mr.R.Y.Mirza, A.P.P. for State.

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DATE : 30th November 2006.

P.C.

. Heard Mr.Bodke for applicant husband.

2. With the assistance of Mr.Bodke, I have

perused the order passed by the learned

2

Magistrate and First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions

and Dist.Judge in Revision Application No.53 of

2001.

3. Applicant wife was aggrieved by the order

of J.M.F.C. dismissing her application under

section 125 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Revision Application preferred by her

on behalf of herself and as guardian of minors,

has rightly been allowed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge. He has perused the

materials and has arrived at a conclusion that

J.M.F.C. erred in ignoring the fact that the

applicant husband before me refused and neglected

to maintain the wife and children. Upon perusal

of the record, learned Judge has arrived at a

further conclusion that there is no substance in

his grievance that the wife stayed away from him

without sufficient and reasonable cause.

Husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal

3

rights has been dismissed. Husband had been

neglecting to maintain the children as well.

Absolutely vague allegations have been made

against her by the husband. He has even gone to

the extent of alleging that she is having illicit

relations with somebody. All such allegations

being unsubstantiated and unfounded, Revisional

Court was in no error in granting the application

and awarding maintainance. Even the quantum is

reasonable.

5. This is not a fit case for interference

in Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court as it is

impermissible for me to re-appreciate and

re-appraise the materials. Application is

dismissed.

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)