1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 141/2010 RAJU S/O BABURAO BODARE VERSUS SUNITA W/O RAJU BODARE AND OTHERS. Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent No.3. CORAM ; A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 14th September, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1 This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned judge, Family Court, Aurangabad on 02/03/2010 in Cri. Misc. application No.24/2009 enhancing the amount of the maintenance payable to the respondents. It is common ground that though in 2006 the applicant succeeded in getting divorce from the respondent No.1, the learned judge of the Family Court directed him to pay certain amount as maintenance to both his divorced wife and the minor daughter. Subsequently, in 2005 this amount was increased by certain order passed by the learned judge of Family Court, Aurangabad. It is the third time, the respondents came to the Family Court through the Criminal Misc. application No.24/2009 for further enhancement of the amount of maintenance. 2 They came before Family Court on 14/05/2009. The applicant opposed the application. He asserted that the respondent No.1 is a stenographer and has independent income. But he failed to prove this. The learned judge held that in absence of proof in support of this contention, it can not be taken into 2 believed. It is admitted fact that the applicant is working as carpenter. He could pay the respondent certain amount as maintenance earlier through his income. 3 Having regard to the inflation since 2006 to 2009, it is obvious that his income also would have increased to some extent. He is not denying his liability to maintain the respondent but by filing this revision, he is only challenging the quantum of the maintenance directed against him. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the applicant to prove properly before the Court below as to what his income was and is. He simply stated orally that his income as carpenter is Rs.100/- per day. The learned judge disbelieved it and rightly so. The applicant thus failed to prove that he was unable to pay enhanced amount of maintenance. This revision should therefore, fail. ORDER The revision stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/cra141.10