-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16Tf1 DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.N0J0043/201 1 Between: Sri.Afsar S/o.Savved — Afzal Mastan, Age 29 years, 0cc.: Service is KSRTC, R/o. 21ld Main, 2m1 Cross, Subhash Nagar, Belgaum. Petitioner (By Sri.Vidhyashankar G.Dalwai for Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate) And: 1. Smt.Bibi Avesha W/o.Afsar Mastan, Major, 0cc.: Household work & Private Work, R/o. Chapagaon, Taluk Khanapur, District Belgaum 2. Kumar Afraz S/o.Afsar Mastan, Age 2 years Minor, Rep. by Minor Guardian, Respondent No.1 Smt.Bibi Ayesha W/o. Afsar Mastan. Respondents (By Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the orde dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court-I and Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Crl.R.P.No.245/2009 confirming the order dated 11/06/2009 passed by the Court of Addi. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Khanapur, in Crl.Misc.No. 18/2008. -2- This petition coming on fçr admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard petitioner’s counsel Sri Sri.Vidhyashankar G.Dalwai for Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure and the learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent and he is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court granting maintenance to the respondent Nos,1 and 2 in a sum of 1,OOO/- and 5OO/- respectively and the said order being confirmed by the Revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Petitioner’s counsel of Sri, Sri.Vidhyashankar G.Dalwai for Sri.Srinand A. Pachhapure submits that the amount of maintenance is on the higher side because the petitioner is getting salary of 2,6QO/- p.m. 4. On the other hand, submission of Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol appearing for the respondent is that the petitioner is working as a driver in KSRTC and getting a good salary apart -3- from the bonus, overtime allowance etc. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the revisional Court is not on the higher side. 5. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the amount awarded by the trial Court and the employment of the petitioner, in my view, the amount awarded by the trial Court as maintenance cannot be termed as excessive, particularly having regard to the cost of living in the present days. 6. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/ Vnp* JUDGE