Advocates:
['SHRI RAHUL S KATE', 'P P', '', 'SHRI MOHAN N DHAMAL FOR', 'R NO']

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 313 OF 1997

WITH

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 314 OF 1997

Dilshad Begaum Ahmadkhan Pathan ..Petitioner

Vs.

1. Ahmadkhan Hanifkhan Pathan

and anr. ..Respondents

Mr. R.S. Kate for petitioner.

Mr. Mohan Dhamal for respondent no.1.

Ms. R.M. Gadhvi, APP for respondent no.2-State.

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.

Date of Reserve : January 15, 2007.

Date of Reserve : January 15, 2007.

Date of Reserve : January 15, 2007.

Date of Pronouncement: January 17, 2007.

Date of Pronouncement: January 17, 2007.

Date of Pronouncement: January 17, 2007.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. The petitioner-wife is aggrieved by the common

Judgment and Order dated 26/9/1997 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge at Baramati, whereby

the Revision Applications i.e. Revision Application

Nos. 77 and 78 filed by the husband came to be

decided.

:2:

2. The petitioner was married to the respondent

no.1 on 29/5/1981 and she was allegedly driven out of

the house by the respondent no.1-husband on 14/6/1989.

She had filed Misc. Criminal Application No.558 of

1990 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming

maintenance and the same was allowed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Baramati on

31/12/1991 fixing the maintenance amount at Rs.200/-

each for the petitioner-wife and her daughter. The

said order came to be challenged by the respondent

no.1-husband in a Revision Petition, which came to be

dismissed on 6/12/1993. The husband filed Misc.

Criminal Application No.84 of 1995 under Section 127

of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the order of

maintenance granted in MCA No.558 of 1990. At the

same time, the petitioner-wife also filed MCA No.364

of 1995 for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

Both these applications came to be decided by the

learned JMFC on 19/9/1996, but by separate orders.

MCA No.84 of 1995 filed by the husband came to be

dismissed, whereas MCA No.364 of 1995 filed by the

wife came to be allowed and the maintenance amount

came to be revised to Rs.400/- p.m. for each of the

:3:

applicants i.e. wife and her daughter. Both these

orders came to be challenged by the respondent

no.1-husband in Criminal Revision Application Nos.77

and 78 of 1996 respectively. By the impugned order,

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati was

pleased to allow the Criminal Revision Application

No.78 of 1996 and Criminal Revision Application No.77

of 1996 was partly allowed by setting aside the order

of maintenance passed in MCA Nos.558 of 1990 and 364

of 1995 in favour of the wife, whereas the enhancement

of maintenance amount fixed at Rs.400/- p.m. in