1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.583 OF 1996 Date of decision: 7/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/583-96crwp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.583 of 1996 Laxman s/o Chagan Shete, Age 35 years, Occ. service r/o c/o. Pratap Vidya Mandir, Chopda, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER (Orig.non applicant) VERSUS 1. Manjulabai w/o. Laxman Shete, Age: 30 years, Occ. Household work, 2. Jitendra Laxman Shete, Age 3 years, minor, under guardianship of respondent no.1. Both r/o. 290, Joshi Peth, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS (Original APPLICANTS) ... Mr.S.G.Bharuka, Adv., for the applicant. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7/9/2009 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The wife Manjulabai (respondent no.1 herein) initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly allowance from her husband ( petitioner herein). Thereafter, she 3 moved for enhancement of monthly allowance in terms of Section 127 of Cr.P.C. which was enhanced to Rs.300/- per month, for each of the applicant. This enhancement was by the third Additional Sessions Judge. 2. Before the learned Judge, there was salary statement of the husband showing his gross salary of Rs.1867/-. The husband, at the material time, claimed that there were deductions of Rs.1030/-, however, it was unexplained as to how he could make such deductions from the salary. It is apparent, the deductions were to give a sabotage to the legitimate claim of the wife, seeking maintenance, to live in a standard akin to the standard of the husband. It is to be considered that the wife had to take care of the son Jitendra who was three years old at the material time. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the order of enhancement by the learned Judge does not appear to be excessive or out of context of the record or earning of the husband. No merit in the Criminal Writ Petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim protection vacated. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/583-96crwp