A.D. Tated, J.
1. This criminal application is directed against the judgment and Order dated 11-5-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No. 141 of 1981 against the Judgement and Order dated 20th June, 1981 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Ahmednagar, Court No. 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 168 of 1980 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to his wife, respondent No. 1, Aprukabai, and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, from the date of the application.
2. The undisputed facts are that respondent No. 1 (original applicant No. 1) is wife of petitioner Vikram and during the wedlock the couple had three children, viz. Chandrabhagabai, Mandabai and Nandabai (respondents Nos. 2 to 4). The respondent No. 1 for herself and for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance on the ground that the petitioner had started-ill treating her after birth of respondent No. 4. She also averred that the petitioner had contracted second marriage on 12-12-1980 with Sakarabai at Shingori Taluka, Shevgaon and his second wife resided with him at his house and she delivered one female child from the petitioner.
3. The learned J.M.F.C. after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the petitioner wilfully refused and neglected to maintain respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and therefore, he ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance as mentioned above.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the learned M.J.F.C. the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Application Bearing No. 141 of 1981 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the revision application with costs.
5. In the revision before the learned Sessions Judge it was contended that respondent No. 2 Chandrabhagabai was married pending proceedings on 20th March, 1983 and, therefore, she could not be awarded maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge, who heard the revision application, observed that the petitioner might, if he so pleased, file an application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial Court for getting the order in respect of maintenance of respondent No. 2, cancelled from the date she was married. In this view of the matter, the learned Session Judge dismissed the revision application.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Judge and Sessions Judge were wrong in finding that the petitioner refused and/or neglected to maintain respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and in granting maintenance on that ground to respondents Nos. 1 to 4, I think that it will not be proper for this Court to go into evidence at this stage. The trial Court who heard the evidence and accepted the evidence of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and reached the conclusion that the petitioner wilfully refused and neglected to maintain respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the learned J.M.F.C.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner next contends that the respondent No. 2 having married pending proceeding, she was not entitled to maintenance from the date of her marriage. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner can approach the trial Court under section 127 Cri. P.C. and get the order suitably amended. Hence I find that there is no substance in this criminal application and hence the same is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 150/- as costs of this application to respondents Nos. 1 to 4.