1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 93/2010 ANIL S/O SHENPHADU PAWAR VERSUS KAVITA W/O ANIL PAWAR AND ANOTHER Anil s/o Shenphadu Pawar ...Applicant Versus Kavita w/o Anil Pawar and another ....Respondents. Mr. V.M. Kagne, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V.D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 14th September, 2010. ORAL ORDER:- 1. This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by learned judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on 24/02/2010 in petition No. E-155/2009. The respondents had filed that petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the present applicant for maintenance. The relationship between the parties is admitted. Respondent No.1 is wife and the respondent No.2 is minor son of the applicant. Prior to filing of the petition before the Family Court, the respondent No.1 admittedly had gone to take help of family counselling center of the area where the applicant was called and was counseled. This did not help mending the relationship between the parties and ultimately the respondents left the applicant’s house. The learned judge of the lower Court, on facts of the case, held that the 2 respondent No.1 had ample reason for not stying with the applicant and further held that he had neglected to maintain the respondents. As regards the amount of maintenance, the learned judge took note of the fact that the applicant himself asserted when he printed his marriage card that he was proprietor of a Medical and General Store. Inspite of this, the applicant in reply to the petition, stated that he does not have any shop or business. He said that he was a labourer. He did not give any particulars as to where he works and what amount he earns. He neither explained as to why he mentioned in his marriage card that he had a shop etc.. Although the applicant’s mother is suffering from Cancer for last many years, the applicant is not her only son who could be responsible for maintaining his mother. He has six more grown up brothers, who have their independent sources of income and who are staying separately. The applicant thus can not avoid maintaining the respondents. 2 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that the learned judge of the lower Court did not take into account the fact that the applicant is suffering from orthopedic disability, to the extent of 52%. Looking to the evidence of the case, the applicant did not try to prove that this disability has limited his ability to earn livelihood. The fact that the applicant at one point of time stated that he had a shop, would really make this disability irrelevant. A shop keeper with a physical disability does not generally suffer financially. The impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to the respondent No.2 as maintenance, is not erroneous or perverse. So the revision can not be admitted. The revision fails. 3 ORDER The revision application stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) ts k/crirevn93.10/