1 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.106 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2006 Venkateshwar S/o.Rajayya Gadappa, Age-40 years, Occu-Police Constable, R/o.C/o.Police Head Quarter,Chandrapur, Tq. and Dist. Chandrapur. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Pranjal Venkateshwar Gadappa, Age-6 years, 2. Vaishnavi D/o.Venkateshwar Gadappa, Age-8 years, Both petitioner no.1 and 2 minor, U/g. Of Lalita Shrikrishna Pakolu (maternal Grand-mother) Age-51 years, Occu-Teacher, R/o.Bhoiwada, Aurangabad, (Kotwalpura) Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.R.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.D.G.Kamble h/f. Mr.P.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 07/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Record shows that Rule was issued in this revision on 07/09/2006. 2 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.106 of 2006 2. The challenge in the present revision is the judgment and order dated 05/12/2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Maintenance Petition no.E-160/2005 awarding maintenance in the sum of Rs.1,000/- each to respondent no.1, the son of the present petitioner, who was aged 6 years at the material rime and respondent no.2 Vaishnavi, the daughter of the petitioner aged 8 years at the material time. 3. Heard learned counsel for revision applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/original applicants before the Family Court. 4. Respondents are respectively son and daughter of the revision applicant is not under dispute. Respondents are at present residing with their maternal grand mother, who is senior citizen as at present her age is more than 60 years, Due to passage of time, it is but natural that she might have retired from the services as at the time of filing of maintenance petition by her on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, before the Family Court, at Aurangabad, she was serving as a teacher in a Primary School. It is not under dispute that since the mother of respondents no.1 and 2 expired due to un-natural death, for which complaint was filed against the revision applicant and at the material time, the criminal proceeding was also pending, considering the age of the respondents no.1 and 2, for their better welfare, their custody was taken by their maternal grand-mother 3 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.106 of 2006 Smt.Lalita Shrikrishna and was taking their care. It is not under dispute that the revision applicant was serving as a constable in the Police Department and was drawing salary at the relevant time in the sum of Rs.8025/- and after deduction, he was getting net salary in the sum of Rs.7,000/-. Even though he has alleged that he is looking after the educational expenses of these respondents, record and proceeding shows that nothing was brought on record to establish that in reality, the revision applicant had paid towards the educational and other expenses of these respondents and was paying that much amount to the maternal grand-mother with whom the respondents were residing. Even though it is alleged that as the revision applicant is ready to take the custody of these minors, till the proceeding was finally decided by the Family Court, no documents were produced before the Family Court about any proceeding for custody was filed by the revision applicant before the Family Court. Considering the income source of the revision applicant the learned Judge of the Family Court granted the maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,000/-, in favour of each of the respondent. Considering the reasoning recorded to grant this maintenance amount, I do not find any perversity in the judgment of the Family Court, which require any interference at the hands of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 5. At this juncture, I may take a judicial note of the fact that at the material time, revision applicant was serving as a constable in 4 Criminal Rev.Appl.No.106 of 2006 the Police Department, After about 6 years, he might have promoted. Considering the hike in the salary because of certain schemes introduced by the State Government like 6th pay commission, for which revision applicant preferred to keep mum, I do not feel that any interference is required in the judgment impugned. In substance, revision application is without merit, and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. Applicant to bear his own costs and to pay costs of this application to the respondents. 6 Rule stands discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2011/cri.rev.106-06