DILIP MAROTRAO SONKAMBLE Vs. INDUBAI DILIP SONKAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.7.2005 passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in criminal revision No. 141 of 2004 the original opponents have filed present criminal application.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant husband submits that the respondent wife has no just cause to reside separately and claim maintenance. It is submitted that father of the petitioner husband got retiral benefits and respondent wife started insisting to invest certain amount in the names of her children. In fact, she had driven the petitioner husband out of the house. Learned counsel submits that learned Sessions Judge has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this criminal application respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have attained majority and they are not entitled for maintenance. Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions, Parbhani is thus liable to be quashed and set aside.