While dismissing the criminal writ petition filed by the Satara-based wife, Justice S S Parkar of the BHC has ruled that she is not entitled to any maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code as her husband was willing to maintain her in their matrimonial house at Talegaon. But she opted to stay at Phaltan in the ancestral home of her husband. Therefore, he, an employee in Talegaon's Indrayani's college, cannot be blamed for deserting her. Moreover, the wife has not brought any evidence on record to show that she was not allowed to live in the Talegaon home.

Justice Parkar has, however, added that petitioner-wife can claim maintenance in a fresh application if she substantiates her allegation of her husband's second marriage, a new ground which was not available to her when the first applicationwas made. During the pendency of the criminal writ in the high court, the wife had filed an affidavit alleging that her husband had already married another woman in the intervening period. The husband has denied the second marriage.

In 1988, the wife first filed for maintenance at the Phaltan (Satara) court. She asked for maintenance for herself and her two children. However, the court observed that she could not prove that her husband had refused to or was unable to maintain her and her children.

Thereafter, the wife and children filed another criminal revision application in the Sessions Court at Satara. This time, the court ordered a monthly payment of Rs 200 to each of the two children. Since the wife was still denied maintenance, she moved high court.