1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.18/2011. (Charansingh Arjunsingh Tomar .Vs. Sau. Meena Charansingh Tomar and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.R. Rathod, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.A. Vyawahare, Advocate for R-1 & R-2. ----- CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATE: JUNE 17, 2011. The applicant questioned legality and propriety of the order dated 28.01.2010 passed in Family Court in Petition No.MCA-8/2009, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur allowed maintenance and directed the present revision applicant to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to his ex- wife Sau. Meena w/o Charansingh Tomar and a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to his daughter Ku. Sonam @ Nilima Tomar, aged about 20 years a student. The learned Advocate for the revision applicant submitted that the respondent No.1 is divorced wife and she had left the company of the revision applicant with her daughter. She had applied for maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and was allowed maintenance. It is grievance of the revision- applicant that the quantum of the amount as enhanced by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur is on higher side, considering the take home salary of the applicant. This 2 contention is abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the gross salary of the revision applicant is in the sum of Rs.23,606/- from which the applicant has allowed deductions towards various expenses including court expenses, LIC, CGHS, PF etc. Considering the nature of deductions as also gross pay and take home pay, it cannot be said that the applicant is over burdened to pay the expenses to his legally wedded wife till she remarry and his unmarried daughter, as ordered by the Family Court. There would be no justification to interfere with the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The criminal Revision application is dismissed. JUDGE NSN