( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 2009 Sudhakar s/o. Laxman Jondhale .. Petitioner Age. 33 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Near Baudh Samaj Mandir, Nandgaon Kh. Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. Versus 1. Surekha w/o. Sudhakar Jondhale .. Respondents Age. 27 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Nandgaon Kh, Tq. And Dist. Parbhani, at present residing at Rahul Nagar, Parbhani. 2. Ku. Sanchi d/o. Sudhakar Jondhale Age. 3 years, Occ. Minor, u/g. Of real mother Surekha w/o. Sudhakar Jondhale i.e. respondent No.1 R/o. As above. Shri P.N. Kalani, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Monika Purnapatre, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.12.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this petition the husband is challenging quantum of maintenance awarded to his wife and daughter. So, far as quantum is concerned neither Trial Court i.e. Judicial ( 2 ) Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Parbhani, who decided Misc. Case No. 325 of 2007 on 15.09.2008 nor the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, who decided Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2008 has discussed the issue of quantum properly and adequately. Absolutely, there is no discussion on the income of the petitioner and his liabilities and the requirements of the respondents. I may quote portions from the judgment of both the Courts. [portion from Trial Court judgment] “9. ........................... That non applicant failed to maintain applicant during the period of separation. It appears from the document filed by the applicant vide Exh.19 to 21 that non applicant is having landed property and is also growing crop in the same landed property, therefore, it appears that non applicant is having sufficient means to provide maintenance to the applicant and also he being able bodied person is liable to maintain applicants, therefore, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order.” [portion from Revisional Court judgment] “6. ........................... From the evidence on record it is clear that there is sufficient evidence to hold that revision petitioner is having sufficient income to maintain his wife and child. As against this, the respondent wife and the child are not having any source of income and therefore, they are entitled for maintenance. Taking into account the minimum ( 3 ) requirement for the food and clothing, the maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month granted to the respondent no.1 and Rs. 500/- granted to the respondent no.2 is just and proper and it is not necessary to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court......” 2. In my opinion, there is no adequate application of mind by either of the two Courts below. Evidence on record is not discussed so far as quantum is concerned. 3. In view of above, it is necessary for this Court to admit this petition and hear the parties on quantum of maintenance. This Court on 21.08.2009 observed that the writ petition to be considered only on restricted question of the quantum awarded to the respondents by way of maintenance allowance. Notice with intimation that the petition is likely to be heard and finally disposed of at the peremptory stage, was given as per said order. 4. In view of above, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. ( 4 ) 5. Heard Adv. Shri P.N. Kalani for the petitioner and Adv. Miss Monika Purnapatre for the respondents. 6. In this case respondent No.1 Surekha is examined on oath at Exh.16. She stated that family of the petitioner owns agricultural land. She requires atleast Rs. 1500/- as monthly maintenance. In cross-examination respondent No.1 – Surekha stated that there are six members in the family of the petitioner and members of his family were also doing agricultural work with her. Obviously, she wanted to say that she was working in the field of the petitioner. She denied that she is able to maintain herself. In support of her say, village Form No. 8-A is produced on record at Exh.19 and it shows that father of the petitioner Laman Ramjo Jondhale is having in all 1 H 49 R land. V.F. 7/12 extracts of said lands are at Exhs. 21 and 22. Crops like Mung, Jowar, Soyabene etc. were raised in the year 2007-08 in land Gat No. 262. In Gat No. 264 crops like Jowar, Tur, Cotton, Soyabene were raised in the year 2007-2008. Crops taken are both Rabbi and Kharip crops. There is a well in the land. Thus, it is clear that family owns irrigated lands bearing ( 5 ) Gat Nos. 262 and 264. The total acerage acre is 1 H 49 R. 7. The petitioner in his evidence at Exh.23 has stated in examination-in-chief that his younger brother and parents are residing with him. His father has small holding and it is not sufficient. But it is not disputed that the two lands Gat No. 262 and 264 are owned by joint family of petitioner, his parents and brother. It is also suggested that yearly income is Rs. 8 lakhs, but that is denied. 8. If we consider holding of the family of the petitioner and the fact that it is irrigated land and two crops are taken in an year, in my opinion, the amount of Rs. 1000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs. 500/- to respondent No.2 cannot be said to be excessive considering the high prices of basic necessities of life. In-fact, it is just sufficient amount of maintenance, which is required by the respondents. It may also be noted that as per the age of respondent No.2 is stated to be three years in the year 2008, so now the child is of about four years of age. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my ( 6 ) opinion, this is not a case to interfere with the order of quantum of maintenance. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/crwp729.09