{1} CWP No.407/2010 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.407 OF 2010 1. Pushpabai Hanmant Kokne PETITIONERS Age-25 years, Occ-Household R/o Shahapur, Tq-Degloor, Dist-Nanded, At Present R/o Khatgaon, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded 2. Arjun Hanmant Kokne Age-3 years, Minor U/g of petitioner No.1 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS 2. Hanmant Digambar Kokne Age-30 years, Occ-Agril R/o Shahapur, Tq-Degloor, Dist-Nanded ....... Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent State Mr.S.V.Chandole, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 13 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: {2} CWP No.407/2010 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.08.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Criminal Revision Application No.14/2008 thereby reducing the maintenance from Rs.1200/- to Rs.700/- and from Rs.500/- to Rs. 300/-, to the petitioners, respectively. 3. It appears that the petitioners had filed Criminal Application No.1/2006 before JMFC, Biloli u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from respondent No.2. It further appears that after service of summons respondent No.2 had appeared in the trial court and had denied the allegations by filing written statement. Thereafter, the parties were directed to lead evidence and after appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, trial court had granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1200/- and Rs.500/- respectively to both the petitioners. It appears that this order was challenged by {3} CWP No.407/2010 respondent No.2 by preferring Criminal Revision No.14/2008 before Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli. For the reasons stated in paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment, the Revisional Court has reduced the amount of maintenance as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly states that the impugned judgment of the Revisional Court, thereby reducing the maintenance amount, is not challenged by respondent No.2. Hence, now, only question which requires consideration is that as to whether any apparent error of law is committed by the Revisional Court in reducing the amount of maintenance, which is impugned in the present petition. 5. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court, particularly observations in paragraphs No.21 and 22, indicates that the trial court is much impressed by the entries in the 7/12 extract ignoring the fact as to what is the yield and what is the cash crop and what is the exact income of respondent No.2. What is the exact income of respondent No.2 from the said agricultural filed has nowhere came on record. The trial court also appears to be {4} CWP No.407/2010 much impressed with the fact that respondent No.2 is a member of a joint family and is holding sufficient land, however, without discussing as to what is the agricultural yield received by the family of respondent No.2, trial court arrived at a conclusion of granting maintenance from the present day scenario and expenses and the cost of leaving. Per contra, the Revisional Court, in paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment, has very mathematically calculated the share of respondent No.2 in the property held by the joint family. It is specifically observed by the revisional court that the share of respondent No.2 in the joint family property is 3 Acres only. It is further observed that the trial court has committed an error in observing that respondent No.2 possesses irrigated land in absence of any proof in that behalf. Revisional Court in view of the fact that there is no evidence in respect of actual income of respondent No.1, rightly reduced the amount of maintenance. Considering the evidence before the Courts below and in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment so also even perusal of the impugned judgment does not indicate any perversity. In the premise, I do not think it {5} CWP No.407/2010 appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence the petition ought to fail. 6. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/cwp407-10