1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 181 OF 2010 Kamlesh S/o Ramesh Naik ..APPLICANT VERSUS Shubhangi W/o Kamlesh Naik ..RESPONDENT Mr. N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.P. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 4th October, 2010 PER COURT :- 1 This Revision is filed against the order dated 25th May, 2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad (Henceforth referred as `the learned Judge') on the respondent’s Petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The correctness of the order is challenged only to the extent of amount of maintenance awarded. The learned Judge directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to respondent / wife. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant criticized the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge on the material available on record. He said that the learned Judge's conclusion that the applicant’s income from his independent business of Computer could not have been less than Rs.10,000/- 2 per month, is wrong. He pointed out that the applicant stated before the learned Judge that his income was Rs. 80/- per day. In support of this claim, the applicant produced before the learned Judge, a letter issued by company in Pune saying that the applicant was getting Rs. 80/- per day as daily wages. The learned Judge rightly rejected this piece of evidence on the ground that the representative of the Company issuing the said letter, was not examined. This document should have been subjected to scrutiny of cross examination. The other circumstances against the applicant are that his father has his own house at Pune and his father has been working with certain Kirloskar Company and that the applicant had no liability at all. Assuming that the material before the learned Judge was not sufficient to draw conclusion that the income of the applicant per month was not less than Rs. 10,000/-, yet the order that the learned Judge passed against the applicant, can not found incorrect or perverse. The sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance is not incorrect. It is in fact modest and on lower side. Since the respondent-wife has not come before this Court challenging the correctness of this order, I am inclined to dismiss this Revision and maintain the impugned order. The Revision stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] gas/crira181.10/ok