JUDGMENT - PARKAR S.S., J.:---The petitioners convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate's, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay for the offence under section 498-A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code have preferred this writ petition. The petitioners are son and mother. 2. Both of them were prosecuted for the aforesaid offence in C.C. No. 1/P/90 before the trial Court. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 6th November, 1990 convicted the petitioner No. 1 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for 30 days, while petitioner No. 2 though convicted under the same provision no sentence was awarded to her and instead she was released under section 360(1) of the Cri.P.C. on probation of good conduct for six months on executing a bond of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. After their conviction both the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1991 before the Sessions Court. The said appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay and was dismissed on 6th August, 1992. Before the Sessions Court it appears that the appellants had not challenged their conviction but only wanted the Court to allow the parties to compound the offence. That plea was turned down on the ground that the offence under section 498-A was not compoundable. It was further observed by the Sessions Court that the fine amount having been already paid by the petitioner No. 1 and the sentence of one day was already undergone and the period of bond against petitioner No. 2 being over, the order of sentence was not interfered with, as the job of the appellant No. 1 was not affected by the order of conviction. 4. Looking to the allegations made about the demand of dowry and the fact that the parties were subsequently divorced and both were remarried, the petitioner No. 1 also could have been released on probation by executing bond as was done in the case of petitioner No. 2. 5. 4. Looking to the allegations made about the demand of dowry and the fact that the parties were subsequently divorced and both were remarried, the petitioner No. 1 also could have been released on probation by executing bond as was done in the case of petitioner No. 2. 5. I therefore, partly allow this petition and while confirming the orders of conviction of both the petitioners I set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded against the petitioner No. 1 and direct his release under section 360(1) of Cri.P.C. on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/-. The rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition partly allowed. -----