ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioners impugn judgement and order dated 08-01-2008 rendered by learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Revision Application No. 107/2006, to the extent of refusal to grant maintenance allowance to the petitioner No. 1. They further seek modification in the order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu and urge for separate maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. for the petitioner No. 1. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner No. 1 is married wife of the respondent and petitioner No. 2 is the minor son born out of their wedlock. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent was performed in the year 1998 in accordance with the tenets and customs of Mahomedan law. Undisputedly, the marital relation still exists. The petitioners filed proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Misc. Cri.Application No. 68/2003) for grant of separate maintenance allowance. 4. The case of the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate was that after about few months of the initial consortium, the respondent subjected the petitioner No. 1 to physical and mental cruelty. He used to demand cash amount and luxury items from her paternal relatives through her. He continued to ill-treat her even after the birth of the petitioner No. 2. Somewhere in the year 2000, he beat her and drove her out of the house alongwith the minor son. They took shelter in the paternal house of the petitioner No. 1. He is employed in a construction company at Aurangabad. He earns monthly salary of Rs. 5000/-. He also owns certain agricultural land at village Kumbhar Pimpalgaon, Taluka Ambad. His agricultural income is around Rs. one (1) lac per year. He owns a house property at village Ghansawangi and earns rental of Rs. 500/- p.m. They are unable to maintain themselves. So, they sought separate maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m., each. 5. By filing his written statement (Exh-22), the respondent resisted the application of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. He alleged that the petitioner No. 1 left his house without his prior permission and on her own accord. He further alleged that she was never interested in cohabitation with him. 1500/- p.m., each. 5. By filing his written statement (Exh-22), the respondent resisted the application of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. He alleged that the petitioner No. 1 left his house without his prior permission and on her own accord. He further alleged that she was never interested in cohabitation with him. He alleged that she insisted him to reside at Sailu near her parental village. He contended that when he expressed inability to leave the house wherein his parents are residing, she left his company. He attempted to fetch her back. She did refuse to join his company. He filed a representation before the Women’s Grievances Redressal Forum (Cell), Parbhani on 07-03-2000. The petitioner No. 1 did not resume the consortium though she was directed by the Women’s Grievances Redressal Forum (Cell). He sent a notice to her on 12-07-2001, yet, she did not turn up. He ultimately filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Aurangabad. He alleged that he is unemployed and has no sufficient source of income. He disputed the quantum of allowance claimed by the petitioners. 6. The parties went to trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate and adduced certain evidence in support of the rival contentions. On merits, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the petitioner No. 1 was entitled to claim Rs. 500/- p.m. and the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs. 400/- p.m. by way of separate maintenance allowance from the respondents. The application was, therefore, granted. The revisional Court held that the petitioner had left company of the respondent on her own accord. The revisional Court came to conclusion that she was at fault in as much as she did not give favourable response to the attempts of the respondent for the reunion. The learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner No. 1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong. Consequently, the revision application was partly allowed and the order of separate maintenance allowance rendered in favour of the petitioner No. 1 (wife) was set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through both the judgements of the Courts below. 8. The Sessions Court gave much emphasis on the admission of the petitioner NO. 1 in the proceedings before the Family Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through both the judgements of the Courts below. 8. The Sessions Court gave much emphasis on the admission of the petitioner NO. 1 in the proceedings before the Family Court. She admitted before the Family Court as follows : "She is ready to live with him if he lives separate from his parents because his parents also instigated him, but the petitioner is not ready to live separate from his parents." The learned Sessions Judge held that the judgement of this Court in Family Court Appeal (F.C.A.) No. 28/2006 would cause impediment in the claim of the wife. The judgement rendered by this Court in F.C.A. No. 28/2006, no doubt, indicates that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights (A-271/2003) filed by the respondent was meritworthy. This Court observed that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed earlier in time by the respondent and the maintenance application filed by the petitioners was, in fact, a counter blast to the petition of the respondent. It needs to be noticed that this Court also quoted certain admissions of the respondent. He admitted that he was not ready to keep the wife separate from his parents. 9. The question is whether the findings of this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 28/2006 can be brushed aside in order to allow the plea of the petitioners about their neglect and refusal at hands of the respondent ? What transpires from the record is that the respondent made attempts for the reunion. While deciding the Family Court Appeal No. 28/2006, the Division Bench of this Court clearly noticed that the allegations of the wife regarding misconduct of the respondent were not credible. It is further observed that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights could not be treated as counter blast but the petition of the wife for maintenance was, in fact, a counter blast. This Court held that there was no lawful excuse for the wife to withdraw herself from the company of the husband. These findings rendered by the Division Bench of this court would make it amply clear that the husband/respondent could not be held guilty for desertion of the wife. 10. In this context, the findings of this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 28/2006 can be regarded as binding on the criminal Court. These findings rendered by the Division Bench of this court would make it amply clear that the husband/respondent could not be held guilty for desertion of the wife. 10. In this context, the findings of this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 28/2006 can be regarded as binding on the criminal Court. The criminal Court could not have travelled beyond the findings of this Court. It is well settled that findings of the Civil Court are binding on the criminal Court. It may be that the petitioner No. 1 (wife) cannot be compelled to share conjugal home with the co-wife. Still, however, such a ground will be available to her by way of afresh cause of action. It was not that due to the second marriage she filed the application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nor the application was amended to show that due to the second marriage, now she is not ready and willing to cohabit with him. It is only by way of filing an affidavit that such ground is now put forth. The disputed question of fact cannot be taken into account while deciding the present writ petition. 11. The learned advocate for the petitioners seek to rely on certain observations in "Begum Subanu alias Saira Banu and another v. A.M. Abdul Gafoor" 1987 Mh.L.J. C.) 399 (S.C.). It has been observed by the Apex Court that eventhough Muslim Law permits a Muslim to have more than one wife on such second marriage, the previous wife is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. It is observed that the first wife cannot be compelled to share conjugal home with co-wife. It has been further observed that offer to take back her cannot be regarded as bonafide unless it is to set up separate residence. It is argued on basis of additional affidavit that the respondent has performed second marriage and that is one of the grounds now to seek separate maintenance allowance. This subsequent development was not the matter of inquiry. The wife may file afresh proceedings on such new cause of action. It is argued on basis of additional affidavit that the respondent has performed second marriage and that is one of the grounds now to seek separate maintenance allowance. This subsequent development was not the matter of inquiry. The wife may file afresh proceedings on such new cause of action. At this juncture, however, such subsequent development cannot be taken into account in as much as it will require necessary proof and it will have to be examined whether the respondent entered into the second marriage out of compulsion when the petitioner No. 1 rejected his offer for a good deal of time without any reason or rhyme. 12. The learned advocate for the petitioners would further rely on certain observations in "Mansoor s/o Chand Patel v. Nanhubee Mansoor Patel and other" 1990 (2) 804 Mah.LR 804. It was a case in which the wife was ill-treated and was unwilling to stay with her husband. This Court observed that she could not be compelled to stay with him inspite of decree of conjugal rights. The question is not whether the wife may be compelled to reside with the husband. The question is as to whether the husband made bonafide offer. As stated earlier, the judgement in the Family Court Appeal goes to show that the fault lies with the petitioner No.1. The application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by way of counter blast. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance allowance when she proved that she was subjected to mal-treatment. There appears no reliable evidence to show that she was subjected to mal-treatment at his hands. On the other hand, he attempted for the reunion by filing a representation before the Women’s Grievances Redressal Forum, Parbhani. He waited for approximately eight (8) years for the reunion. It was thereafter that he allegedly performed the second marriage. The allegation that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home is not duly proved in the fact situation of the present case. Considering these aspects, it is difficult to hold that the impugned judgement of the learned Sessions Judge suffers from any illegality or perversity. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.