1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 330 OF 2005 Ajit S/o Kashinathrao Gedam Age : 30 Years, Occ.: Education R/o : Plot No. 6, Sangita Colony, Bhavsingpura, Aurangabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Anuja D/o Ajit Gedam Age : 4 Years, Occ. : Nil, Through her natural mother and u/g of Jyoti W/o Ajit Gedam Age : 29 Years, Occ. : Service, R/o : Bhalerao Ramesh N-9, H.No. 26, N 13/51, Raigad Nagar, Mhada Colony, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENT Mr. K.N.Nagarkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. D.B.Pawar, Advocate for Respondent. [ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] DATE : 18/09/2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K.N.Nagarkar and Mr. D.B.Pawar for respective parties. 2. Grant of maintenance to the daughter Anuja, then six months old, now 6 years of age @ Rs. 1500/- per month by the learned Judge, Family Court in Petition No. E-548 of 2004 by Order dated 31/8/2005 is questioned by the father Ajit. 3. On 28/2/2006, Rule was issued and parties were granted liberty to move for early hearing. Prior to that, on 19/10/2005, after hearing the counsel for the father Ajit, he was directed to make regular remittance of Rs. 750/- per month with the Family Court without fail. Default in compliance, entailed forfeiture of the concession granted. 4. During the course of submission, it reveals that Ajit, the petitioner has not complied the earlier direction of this Court dated 19/10/2005 as the arrears mounted for 3 months comes to Rs. 2250/-. This shows the conduct of the father Ajit who seeks concession from this Court. In fact, the concession comes to an end. 5. Mr. Nagarkar while arguing for father Ajit, contended that he is a student of post graduation in the department of Zoology in Dr. 3 Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and is pursuing his Ph.D. In Zoology, for which the counsel tendered before me the Identity Card of the said University. 6. It was contended, since Ajit has no source of income and he is not earning, this needs consideration. I am afraid, such request in Criminal Revision can be entertained as the scope is available to the father Ajit in terms of Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The fact remains that the status of Jyoti with Ajit and delivery/birth of Anuja can not now be questioned. Then comes about the income of father. The mother of the child before the learned Judge, Family Court has tendered several documents, which indicated that present petitioner is an income tax payee. He was contractor, got several works on contract. He was having visiting card showing his profession as contractor. During the course of submission, it is submitted that almost all members of the family of Ajit were in employment. He own two houses at Aurangabad. His one of the brother is serving in abroad, the family of Ajit with his brother and parents, constitute joint family. 8. In the past, there was an attempt by the wife to have reconciliation. However, same did not materialize. Wife is in service as teacher and consequently the learned Judge held that she is not entitled 4 for the maintenance. 9. The daughter is naturally to be maintained by the parents and considering the educational costs, day to day life expenses, the learned Judge calculated the sum to be @ Rs. 3,000/- initially and deducted Rs. 1500/- to be borne by wife and Rs. 1500/- to be paid by father Ajit. 10. The child is bound to live and nourished akin to the parent’s standard and way of their earning and background. During the course of submission, it is informed that since the child becomes 6 years old, she is required to pay monthly fee of Rs. 1800/- and other expenses. The fact remains, at the material time, before the learned Judge there was ample evidence to show good yield of earning to the father Ajit, which made the learned Judge to assess the sum and grant award of maintenance @ Rs. 1500/-. The analysis of evidence as carried out by the learned Judge, Family Court, was based on the documents produced and not on surmises and conjectures. The order does not require any interference. Hence, Revision Application dismissed. Rule discharged. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE knp/Cri.Revn.Apln330.05