{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2008 Navnath s/o Eknath Chormare Age-42 years, Occ-Service R/o Kamgar Colony, Chikalthana, Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS Nirmala w/o Navnath Chormare Age-32 years, Occ-Service R/o C/o Raghunath Davane, Tophkana Cantonment, Aurangabad RESPONDENT ....... Mr. U.V.Jawalikar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.B.Kharosekar, Advocate for the respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd August 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant-husband, has challenged the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Maintenance Petition No.E-342/2007. By the impugned order, the applicant- husband is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.700/- to {2} the respondent-wife. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 4. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the just decision of this criminal revision application, can be summarized thus - a) Marriage of applicant-husband and respondent-wife was performed on 14.03.1988. It is alleged that while the said marriage is in subsistence, the applicant-husband has performed second marriage on 20.12.2005. Due to second marriage of applicant-husband, relations between applicant- husband and respondent-wife became strained and hence respondent-wife started residing with her parents. It is alleged that as the respondent-wife had no means to survive, she had accepted a job of a helper in a private hospital where she is drawing a meager salary, which is not sufficient to maintain herself. b) As the respondent was residing separately, the applicant filed a petition A-116/2007 under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce u/s 13 (1) (1-b) of the Hindu {3} Marriage Act. c) As against this the respondent wife, after she was compelled to live with her parents, filed petition u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance bearing Petition No.E-342/2007. It appears that directions were given to lead common evidence in both the petitions and both the petitions are disposed of by the common judgment dated 16.04.2008 by which the petition filed by applicant-husband seeking divorce bearing No.A-116/2010 came to be rejected while petition filed by respondent-wife claiming maintenance bearing Petition No.E-342/2007 came to be partly allowed and the applicant-husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.700/- per month to the respondent-wife towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application. The said order is impugned in the present revision application. 5. Considering the narrow scope of revision, the learned counsel for the parties were restricted to advance submissions only to the extent of quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. It appears that to that effect issues were framed by the lower court, which finds place at internal page 9 of the impugned judgment and order where 3 issues were framed in respect of the divorce petition and 5 issues were framed in respect of maintenance petition. {4} 6. Considering the evidence lead by the parties and the observations of the learned lower court, this Court need not dilate the merits of the order part of the judgment which relates to the issues No.1 and 2, which governs the divorce petition. So far as 5 issues in respect of maintenance petition filed by the wife, are concerned, issue no.2 relates as to whether respondent-wife is unable to maintain herself and has no sufficient source of income. Observations on this issue find place in para No.36 to 38 and the observations in respect of issue No.3 find place in para 39 and 40 of the impugned order. 7. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is clear that to prove the income of the respondent-wife other than suggestions given to her during the cross-examination that she is drawing Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/- per month, nothing is brought on record by way of documentary evidence or examining the concerned persons from the hospital where she was working at the relevant time. As against this, to bring the income of applicant- husband on record, salary slip of the applicant for the month of March 2008 is brought on record, which is at Exhibit-17. Salary slip of the applicant-husband shows that monthly gross salary of the applicant-husband is in the sum of Rs.4469.37 and net salary is in the sum of Rs.3820/- per month. It is specifically observed by the lower court in para 42 that so far as deduction from the gross salary by the employer of the applicant-husband is concerned, the same is beneficial to the applicant-husband and hence to calculate {5} the quantum of maintenance, the gross salary of the applicant in the sum of Rs.4469.37 is required to be considered. It is further observed by the lower court in the same paragraph that in view of the fact that respondent-wife has admitted in her cross- examination that she earns a meager salary of Rs.300/- per month, as she works in a private hospital, this fact is also taken into consideration while granting the maintenance. In paragraphs No.43 and 44 of the impugned judgment, learned lower court has concluded that considering the needs expressed by respondent- wife, Rs.1000/- per month will be the proper amount of maintenance from which, the income of the respondent-wife in the sum of Rs.300/- per month is deducted and thus considering the overall oral and documentary evidence, it is concluded by the lower court that Rs.700/- per month will be the appropriate maintenance to be awarded to respondent-wife. This Court does not think it proper to interfere with the said order, as neither the same is perverse nor is erroneous. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the revision application and hence, the revision application, sans merits, stands rejected. 8. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/crirev151-08