ORDER V. K. Jadhav, J. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nanded in Petition No. E-164 of 2014, the original opponent/husband has preferred this criminal revision application. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision application are as follows:- a) It is the case of the respondent-wife that the respondent-wife has filed an application bearing Petition E-164 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nanded under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of maintenance. The respondent-wife claims to be legally wedded wife of the present petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 10.6.2006 at Udgir. She was treated well initially for 3 to 4 months and during this period she conceived. On 20.4.2007 respondent-wife gave birth to respondent No.2 Nandini. However, after about four months of the marriage, the petitioner husband and his parents started ill-treating the respondent-wife on petty reasons. She was abused and assaulted. The petitioner husband used to return the home at late hours in the night time under the influence of liquor. Even thereafter the petitioner husband had started demanding Rs. 70,000/- and subjected her to ill-treatment on account of nonfulfillment of said demand. In the month of July 2007, the petitioner husband had driven the respondent-wife out from his house and since then the petitioner-husband did not provide anything to the respondent-wife for her maintenance. Though the respondent-wife has filed Misc. Criminal application No. 50 of 2008 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Udgir under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 on 9.6.2008, in term of compromise effected between them and since the petitioner-husband undertook good behavior, the parties resumed cohabitation. However, within one month therefrom, the petitioner-husband again started giving ill-treatment to the respondent-wife. Even though the parents of the respondent-wife arranged a meeting, however, the petitioner-husband refused for settlement and gave ultimatum for fulfillment of his monetary demand. Even during this period, the petitioner-husband did not provide anything for maintenance of respondent-wife. b) Ultimately, the respondent-wife has filed H.M.P. No. 32 of 2012 in the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Nanded for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Even during this period, the petitioner-husband did not provide anything for maintenance of respondent-wife. b) Ultimately, the respondent-wife has filed H.M.P. No. 32 of 2012 in the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Nanded for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. However, on assurance of good behaviour by the petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife withdrew the said H.M.P. Instead of abiding by the assurance given, the petitioner-husband has filed H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 for dissolution of marriage in the court of learned C.J.S.D. Nanded and the same came to be dismissed on merits. c) It is further case of the respondent-wife that the petitioner husband has refused and neglected to maintain them. The petitioner husband is serving as male nurse and drawing salary of Rs. 35,000/- p.m.. He also owns agriculture land, house property, vehicles, which provide regular income to him. The father of the petitioner-husband is retired Head Master, having pension and mother is also serving as teacher. None is depending upon the petitioner-husband. On the other hand, the respondents have no independent source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves. Respondent No.2 daughter is taking education in English school and considerable educational expenses are required. d) The petitioner-husband has strongly resisted the application by filing his say. He has not disputed the relationship. However, the petitioner-husband has denied all adverse allegations made against him. According to him, the respondent-wife did not behave properly. When she went to her parental house for delivery, she returned after six months of delivery. She insisted the petitioner-husband to reside separately from his parents. However, being the only son, he could not reside separately. Thus, the respondent wife used to pick up the quarrels frequently. e) Respondent-wife filed criminal application No. 50 of 2008 for maintenance in the court of J.M.F.C. Udgir and during the pendency of the said application, under the intervention of the relatives, settlement came to be effected. The father of the respondent-wife brought a bond paper of Rs. 50 and contents thereon were scribed as per the whims of the father of respondent-wife. The petitioner husband was compelled to sign upon the said bond paper. In terms of the settlement, cohabitation was resumed. However, within 15/20 days, the respondent-wife went to her parental house assuring to return after two days. 50 and contents thereon were scribed as per the whims of the father of respondent-wife. The petitioner husband was compelled to sign upon the said bond paper. In terms of the settlement, cohabitation was resumed. However, within 15/20 days, the respondent-wife went to her parental house assuring to return after two days. However, she refused to join the company of the petitioner-husband thereafter and instead she filed divorce petition in the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Nanded. The petitionerhusband has made efforts for settlement, however, the respondentwife did no respond to the efforts of the petitioner-husband. At the stage of judgment, the respondent-wife unconditionally withdrew the said divorce petition. However, though the petitioner husband has requested to resume for cohabitation but there was no response from the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife started residing with her parents without any cause. Due to the conduct of the respondentwife, the petitioner has suffered from mental depression. Even during pendency of the petition before the Family Court, the father of respondent-wife started demanding Rs. 3,00,000/-. The respondentwife did not behave properly and she did not carry out the compromise in true spirit. According to the petitioner-husband he is serving as male nurse. He never refused and neglected the respondent-wife and his daughter. Therefore he is not liable to pay the maintenance. f) The respondent-wife has examined herself and also examined her father. She relied upon the certified copy of the judgment in H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014. Fees receipts at Exh.46 to 57, 61 to 66, pay slips for the month of September 2015 at Exh.58, Pahani Patrak of survey No.22. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has examined himself as D.W. 1 and filed evidence close pursis. g) The learned Judge of the Family Court, Nanded by impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2016 in Petition E-164 of 2014 directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 5000/- p.m. to the respondent No.1-wife and Rs. 4000/- p.m. to respondent No.2 daughter from the date of filing of petition i.e. 8.2.2013 with costs of Rs. 2000/- with further direction that the amount of interim maintenance shall be adjusted in calculating the outstanding dues. Hence, this criminal revision application. 3. The learned counsel of the petitioner-husband submits that due to adamant and rude behavior of respondent-wife, the petitioner has suffered from depression. The petitioner-husband had to take treatment in the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore. Hence, this criminal revision application. 3. The learned counsel of the petitioner-husband submits that due to adamant and rude behavior of respondent-wife, the petitioner has suffered from depression. The petitioner-husband had to take treatment in the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore. He has been diagnosed as a case of depression. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner husband has never refused and neglected to maintain the respondent-wife. The petitioner-husband is regularly paying the amount of interim maintenance. Learned counsel submits that the mother of the petitioner is no more in service. The petitioner-husband has no other source of income except the salaried income. He is required to spend upon his treatment for illness of depression. However, the learned Judge of the Family Court has not considered the same and granted maintenance amount at excessive rate. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-wife has no just and sufficient reason to live separate and demand maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent-wife was subjected to ill-treatment on various counts, including non-fulfillment of demand of certain amount. There was no reason for the respondent-wife to stay with her daughter in her parents'' house. There was no reason for the petitioner husband to execute the bond at the time of withdrawing criminal application No. 50 of 2008 filed by the respondent-wife for maintenance in the Court of J.M.F.C. Udgir stating therein that in future he would behave properly and treat the respondent-wife nicely. Thus, the respondent wife withdrew the said maintenance application. However, even thereafter the respondent-wife was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of petitioner-husband almost for the same reason. Though the respondent-wife has withdrawn her H.M.P. filed for decree of divorce, the petitioner-husband has persuaded his H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 for divorce and the same has been decided on merits. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner husband has refused and neglected to maintain the respondents. The petitioner has salaried income and his salary slip is produced on record and marked Exh.58. There is also Pahani Patrak of survey No. 22 at Exh.67. Father of the petitioner-husband is getting pension and mother is also in service. The petitioner owns house property. Thus, considering the same and considering the status of the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court has granted maintenance at very reasonable rate. No interference is required. 5. There is also Pahani Patrak of survey No. 22 at Exh.67. Father of the petitioner-husband is getting pension and mother is also in service. The petitioner owns house property. Thus, considering the same and considering the status of the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court has granted maintenance at very reasonable rate. No interference is required. 5. On careful perusal of oral evidence led by the parties and also documentary evidence, it appears that the respondent-wife was subjected to ill-treatment on various grounds and as such she had just and sufficient reason to live separate and demand maintenance. There is no reason for the petitioner husband to execute the bond paper when the respondent-wife has filed criminal application No. 50 of 2008 for maintenance before the J.M.F.C. Udgir. The petitioner husband has also not disputed the same. However, according to him the contents thereof are scribed as per the whims of father of the respondent-wife and he was compelled to sign upon the said bond paper. However, I do not find any substance in it. There is clear evidence about refusal and neglect to maintain the respondent-wife. Learned counsel of the petitioner husband has vehemently submitted that there was no reason for the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and daughter when the wife left his house without any just cause. Learned counsel submits that petitioner-husband has paid interim maintenance regularly and as such there is no refusal or neglect to maintain the respondents on the part of the petitionerhusband. I do not find any substance in the said submission. It is for the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and daughter when they are unable to maintain themselves. Only after the interim order passed by this court, the petitioner-husband has paid the interim maintenance. The same cannot be taken into consideration so as to observe that the petitioner-husband in that way has not refused and neglected to maintain the respondent-wife. However, it is a matter of record that the petitioner-husband has not paid any amount to the respondents during their separation as maintenance nor there are bonafide and sincere efforts to bring back the respondent-wife for further cohabitation. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has filed H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 for decree for divorce and the same has been dismissed on merits. 6. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has filed H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 for decree for divorce and the same has been dismissed on merits. 6. In para 9 of the judgment, the learned Family Court has made reference to the judgment of H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 at Exh.45. The learned Judge of the Family Court has observed that the allegations levelled by the petitioner-husband in his reply were reiterated in the said H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 and on the basis of the said allegations, the petitioner-husband claimed dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The learned Judge of the civil court has disbelieved the said allegations and dismissed the petition on merits. The learned Judge has observed that merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner-husband have already been adjudicated by the competent court of law and as such defence put-forth by the petitioner-husband in his reply Exh.10 does not avail any assistance to him. 7. Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act provide which judgment of the Court of justice are relevant and to what extent. Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act read as under:- "40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.- The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit, or to hold such trial. 41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction. -A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof that any legal character, which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property. 42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41.-Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. 43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant.-Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of this Act." 8. In the case of K.G. Premshankar vs. Inspector of Police and another, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 4343 , the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue. The Hon''ble Apex Court referred its previous judgment on the said point and even the decision rendered by the Privy Council and also the decision of Full Bench of Lahore High Court, thus concluded the point by making following observations in para 31 to 33 of the judgment. Paras 31 to 33 of the said judgment as reproduced as follows:- "31. Further, the judgment, order or decree passed in a previous civil proceeding, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 to 41 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case, Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter(s) decided therein. Further, the judgment, order or decree passed in a previous civil proceeding, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 to 41 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case, Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter(s) decided therein. Take for illustration, in a case of alleged trespass by ''A'' on "B''s property, ''B'' filed a suit for declaration of its title and to recover possession form ''A'' and suit is decree. Thereafter, in a criminal prosecution by ''B'' against ''A'' for trespass, judgment passed between the parties in civil proceeding cold be relevant and Court may hold that if conclusively establishes the title as well as possession of ''B'' over the property. In such case, ''A'' may be convicted for trespass. The illustration to Section 42 which is quoted above makes the position clear. Hence, in each and every case, first question which would require consideration is whether judgment, order or decree is relevant? If relevant - its effect. It may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon facts of each case. 32. In the present case, the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of M.S. Sheriff''s case (supra) would be binding, wherein it has been specifically held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that possibility of conflicting decision in civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages "such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court biding on the other, or even relevant, except for limited purpose such as sentence or damages." 33. Hence, the observation made by this Court in V.M. Shah''s case (supra) that the finding recorded by the criminal Court stands superseded by the finding recorded by the Civil Court is not correct enunciation of law. Further, the general observations made in Karam Chand''s case are in context of the facts of the case stated above. The Court was not required to consider the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff''s case as well as sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act." 9. In view of the above, I do not find any fault in the observations made by the learned Judge of the Family Court in para 9 of the judgment. The Court was not required to consider the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff''s case as well as sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act." 9. In view of the above, I do not find any fault in the observations made by the learned Judge of the Family Court in para 9 of the judgment. Otherwise also, the said earlier proceedings are between the same parties and as such judgment delivered in H.M.P. No. 65 of 2014 and the findings recorded therein on the same set of allegations are binding upon the parties. 10. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the learned Judge of the Family Court has considered salary slip at Exh.58. As per the said salary slip, which is for the month September, 2015 the gross salary of the petitioner-husband was Rs. 34,633/- and his net salary was Rs. 21,043/-. The learned Judge of the Family Court upon considering the deductions, has rightly observed that the respondent is in position to make substantial contribution towards G.P.F. and KGID to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also a part of record that the parents of the petitioner are not depending upon him. There is agriculture property and also house property. Respondent No.2 daughter is taking education in English school and as such educational needs of respondent No.2 are growing. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly carved out the maintenance keeping in mind the income and status of the parties. 11. In view of above, I find no substance in this criminal revision application. No interference is warranted. The criminal revision application deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.