1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 635 OF 2006 Vinayak S/o Pandhari Karad Age : 33 Years, Occ.: Agril. R/o : Rameshwar, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Sau. Mangal W/o Vinayak Karad Age : 27 Years, Occ. : Labour, R/o : Rameshwar, Tq. : Latur, Dist. : Beed. .... RESPONDENT Mr. G.D.Kale holding for Mr. M.V. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. U.B.Bondar, Advocate for Respondent. [ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] DATE : 18/09/2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.D.Kale and Mr. U.B.Bondar for respective parties. 2 2. Rule. By consent, finally decided. 3. Grant of maintenance awarded by the J.M.F.C., Ambajogai was contested by husband and also the wife before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai. The enhancement sought by the wife was allowed in Criminal Application No. 90 of 2002, thereby making the monthly allowance to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month from the one granted by the learned J.M.F.C. @ Rs. 500/- per month. 4. During the course of submission, Mr. Kale points that the wife ‘s antecedents are not clean. She has faced the prosecution in terms of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, as the son was drawn in the well and she suffered conviction for 9 months. However, Mr. Bondar informs that the same is subject to challenge before the appellate court, where operates suspension to the sentence, the wife is released on bail. 5. Mr. Kale also submits that there was nothing before the learned Judge to consider the earning of the husband making maintenance to Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 750/- per month. 6. Record rebels against the husband, as before the learned J.M.F.C., there was 7/12 extracts at Exh. 37 to 44, which indicated holding to be 7 – 8 Acres in the name of husband, wherein sugarcane 3 crop was seen and he was taking such income. Witness Vishnu examined on behalf of husband, had to accept about such income and yield of husband. Considering the status of the parties, the learned Judge considered that the annual yield to the husband to be taken as Rs. 1,00,000/-. These aspects were considered by the Sessions Judge and he awarded Rs. 750/- to the wife by modifying earlier order. The wife is expected to live in identical standard to the husband, since the husband has good earning, the spause requires same diving. Naturally, the award of maintenance is not excessive as it does not reflect any non application of mind. Criminal Writ Petition lacks merit. It is rejected. Rule discharged. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE knp/Cri.WP635.06