1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2759/2008 Applicant :- Sau. Sonal w/o Vishal Adhau (Patil), Aged about 28 years, Occ. Nil, Presently residing at Near Samartha Hospital, Kedia Plots, Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola (Police Station Civil Lines, Akola). ...Versus... Respondent :- Vishal s/o Anantrao Adhau (Patil), Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service, (Software Engineer), R/o Flat No.51, MHADA, Vanag Corner, Trimurti Society, Near Kanarao Hotel, kothrud, Pune, Tq. and Dist. Pune. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri O.Y. Kashid, Adv.for applicant] [Shri R.J. Shinde, Adv. for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 04.01.2010 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that enhancement to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant - wife towards maintenance is on lower side, looking to the fact that the respondent – husband is Software Engineer and therefore, the judgment in question deserves to be interfered with. 2 3. Having seen the impugned judgment it appears that the respondent – husband is earning Rs.11,902/- per month out of which he is required to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant - wife. In view of the fact that the applicant has no other liability to maintain except herself, I do not think that the order made by the Sessions Judge enhancing the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month can be said to be on lower side balancing the interest of both sides. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the evidence produced by the applicant - wife has gone unchallenged and therefore, the Sessions Court ought to have accepted the entire evidence. The submission is not correct since ultimately the Court is required to work out the interest of both the parties and I do not find any error in the present matter in enhancing the maintenance to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month. There is no merit in the present criminal application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the applicant – wife is at liberty to apply for enhancement of maintenance in future in case occasion arises. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw