1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2010 1. Sau Sarika W/o Mangesh Shimpi and others ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. Mahesh S/o Shantaram Shimpi and another. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.V.P.Raje,Advocate holding for Shri C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for Petitioners. Shri.S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 15th NOVEMBER,2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Present Writ Petition is preferred by the Petitioner No.1 against the order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Criminal Revision Applications No.96 of 2008, whereby the maintenance granted to her and 2 her minor daughter, the petitioner No.2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule, by order dated 12th May, 2006 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 321 of 2006, reduced. 3. The petitioners-Original applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance. The same was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule by order dated 12th May 2008, directing the respondent No.1 to pay sum of Rs. 1500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) Per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) per month to the petitioner No.2. The same was challenged by the petitioners-Original applicants as well as respondent No.1 before Sessions Judge, Dhule. The Criminal Revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and Criminal Revision preferred by the respondent No.1 was allowed by the Sessions Judge, and reduced the monthly maintenance amount payable to the petitioner No.1 from Rs.1500/-(Rupees One Thousand 3 Five Hundred) to Rs.1200/-(Rupees One Thousand two Hundred) and maintenance amount payable to the petitioner No.2 from Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) to Rs.900/-(Rupees Nine Hundred). 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence placed on record to prove that respondent No.1 is doing business under the name and style “Datta Computer Centre”. He further submits that there was no reason for reducing maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge, Dhule. The learned Sessions Judge in para No. 9 of the Judgment considered the evidence on record and held that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the respondent No.1 was doing any business. It is further held by the Appellate Court that 4 respondent No.1 recently completed his LL.B Course and had just started profession as an Advocate. 6. Considering the evidence and reasons recorded by the Sessions Judge, Dhule in para No.9 of the judgment, I do not find any apparent error in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge to entertain the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] MTK