JUDGMENT - Dr. (Mrs.) PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner Ansari Mohammed Riyaz Abdul Latif, being aggrieved by three orders, all dated 23rd July, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, rejecting his Criminal Revision Application Nos. 79 of 1993, 103 of 1993 and 154 of 1993. 2. Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 1993 was made by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon dated 16th March, 1993, who was pleased to issue conditional distress warrant against the revision petitioner, the original non-applicant, against whom recovery proceedings were pending under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. The second application namely, Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1993 was filed by the revision petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon passed on 26th April, 1993, directing that the petitioner be taken into Magisterial custody for one month, for defaults which he had made in payment of maintenance to his wife Birjis Khatoon and daughter Nurul-Saher. This was a conditional order, directing that if the petitioner deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/-, then he would be released from jail. By the impugned order, the Magistrate gave one month's time to the revision petitioner to deposit the said amount. 4. The third application, namely, Criminal Revision Application No. 154 of 1993 is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 1991 on 7th July, 1993 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- to respondents 2 and 3, namely, wife and daughter of the revision petitioner, which amount was deposited by the revision petitioner at the instance of the court of sessions in the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 1993. 5. In Criminal Application No. 2382 of 1993, the applicant, for the first time, has prayed for the custody of the child Nurul-saher, and has prayed that all the above mentioned orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, be quashed. 6. Writ Petition No. 655 of 1991 as well as the Criminal Application No. 2382 of 1993 will be disposed of by this common judgment. 7. 6. Writ Petition No. 655 of 1991 as well as the Criminal Application No. 2382 of 1993 will be disposed of by this common judgment. 7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has been appearing in person all through out, who is himself an Advocate. The proceedings are for maintenance to be paid to his wife and minor daughter. The learned Magistrate has already granted maintenance amount i.e. Rs. 250/- per month, to be paid to his wife Birjis Khatoon, and an amount of Rs. 150/- per month to his minor daughter, aged 5 years namely, Nurul-Saher. However, it appears from the entire proceedings that the petitioner, who is an Advocate, practising in various courts in Malegaon and also in this Court, has been not only dilly dallying in making the payment as per the order, but his bent upon seeing that the helpless and hapless wife and the daughter are dragged into continuous and unending litigation, so that, they are not only put to inconvenience and hardship, but that, they are deprived of the benefit of the said order. 8. The matter appeared on the Board of this Court on number of occasions. If one goes through the Roznama, it will reveal that the matter appeared before Mr. T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J., on 16-9-1998, when the petitioner remained absent. The learned Judge therefore directed that the notice be issued to the petitioner to remain present in the Court, which was made returnable on 15-10-1998. The notice was duly served and the petitioner remained present in the Court in person on 20-11-1998. Thereafter, the matter appeared on the Board on 11-1-1999. However, the petitioner was absent. Matter was then simpliciter adjourned to 18-1-1999. On that day also, when the matter was called out, the petitioner was absent. The matter was kept back, but the petitioner did not appear throughout the day. Matter was then adjourned to 21-1-1999. The matter was called out again. The petitioner was absent. Advocates for respondents 1, 2 3 were present. They were heard, and in all fairness, the matter was again kept on 22nd January i.e. today, to give the petitioner a chance to argue, if he so desired. The matter is thus appearing on Board today also; but the petitioner is absent. 9. I have heard Mr. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. They were heard, and in all fairness, the matter was again kept on 22nd January i.e. today, to give the petitioner a chance to argue, if he so desired. The matter is thus appearing on Board today also; but the petitioner is absent. 9. I have heard Mr. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Mane for respondents 3 and 4, at length. I have also gone through the entire proceedings of the matter. All the three judgments and orders dated 23rd July, 1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malegaon are very eloquent. If one goes through them, what emerges from the observations of the learned Judge, is the utter reluctance of the petitioner to comply with the order of the Court and to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter, to which they are legally entitled. It appears that the petitioner has done everything within his means to avoid this payment. Distress warrant had to be issued, recovery proceedings had to be initiated, the petitioner was directed to be sent in Jail on a conditional order passed by the Magistrate. It is also revealed that the petitioner was produced in the Lower Court only on issuance of non-bailable warrant. The petitioner is an Advocate by profession, and it has to be said with dismay that he has taken undue advantage of his legal knowledge. It is another thing that he has failed in his endeavour in not complying with the orders passed by the courts having competent jurisdiction. The petitioner appears to have utter disregard for the orders passed by the Court. It is also quite evident from the multiplicity of the proceedings to which he has resorted to, that by hook or crook, he wants to avoid making payment of maintenance to his wife and daughter. The learned Sessions Judge, in all his three judgments, has given a graphic account of all the events and has narrated the chronology of events, so also, the abuse of the process of law, to which the petitioner has resorted to. 10. I have gone through all the three judgments passed by the lower Court and I do not find any infirmity in the same. There are good reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to substantiate his findings. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with them. 10. I have gone through all the three judgments passed by the lower Court and I do not find any infirmity in the same. There are good reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to substantiate his findings. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with them. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that the prayer made by the petitioner in the criminal application for custody of his daughter, was never made in the Lower Court. This prayer is made for the first time in the High Court. Considering the callous nature of the petitioner, his utter disregard to comply with the orders passed by the courts, his hide and seek with the orders, his reluctance to comply with them, the possibility cannot be ruled out that this prayer has come for the first time, only to avoid the payment of maintenance to the daughter. It does not appear to have been made because of any fatherly love for the child. Consequently, I pass the following order : Writ Petition No. 655 of 1991 along with Criminal Application No. 2382 of 1993 are both dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). The cost has to be paid by the petitioner to his wife Birjis Khatoon and daughter Nurul-Saher, within two months from today. The petitioner also has to pay the entire permissible amount of arrears of maintenance within two months from today. The petitioner, thereafter, to pay the maintenance amount regularly to his wife and daughter, as per the order of the Lower Court. Writ Petition No. 655 of 1991 and Criminal Application No. 2382 of 1993 are both disposed of in the aforestated terms. Petitions dismissed. *****