1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. CRIMINAL REVISION No. 186 OF 2007 Firoz Khan s/o Baldar Khan, A.P. Fitter, aged 40 years, Occupation Service, r/o Mahajan Nagar, Majari, Tah. Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur. ... APPLICANT. -VERSUS - 1. Smt. Afsana w/o Firoz Khan, aged 27 years, Occ.: Household. 2. Shoeb s/o Firoz Khan, aged 6 years, minor through his guardian mother-applicant, Both r/o c/o Rajubhai Driver, in the house of Daroa, Near Papadiwale Shop, Bakramandi, Mominpura, Nagpur. 3. The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENTS. .... Mr. A.D. Vyawahare Advocate for the Applicant. None for the Respondents 1 & 2 though served. Mr. A.S. Sonare, APP, for Respondent no.3. .... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 15 th JANUARY, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : Applicant/husband has put to challenge the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by Family Court No.4 in Petition No. E-235/05 awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month to the non-applicant no.1/ wife and Rs.500/- per month to non-applicant no.2- son. 2. Mr.Vyawahare, learned counsel for the applicant in support of the revision application vehemently argued that the applicant is having the wife and children which is his third wife and non-applicant no.1 is the second wife. He thus has the liability to maintain the wife living with him and the children. Therefore, awarding of maintenance by the Family Court ignoring the said aspect and the deductions made from the salary of the applicant due to loan instalments from co-operative society and L.I.C. is not correct. He further submits that the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the son is on higher side and the court below ought to have given a thought before awarding maintenance amount, as aforesaid. 3. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2, though served. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order made by the Family Court. It is seen that the non-applicant/wife is residing at Nagpur with her parents. The child was of five years of age at the relevant time and now must have grown up. The liability of loan has been incurred 3 by the applicant on his own and there is no evidence to show that at the behest of the wife the liability of loan has been incurred. The deductions towards L.I.C. and loan liability therefore cannot be taken into consideration. The salary of the applicant must have increased after implementation of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations since W.C.L., where the applicant is working, is a Central Government organization. The requirement of the son must have increased and is bound to increase with the age. Grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- to the wife should have been at Rs.2,000/- per month and the maintenance for the son should have been at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. In the result, I make the following order. 5. The wife was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month while the child son was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. Consequently, there is no change in the operative order of the Family Court. With this, the present revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE