1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 138/2010 Yogesh s/o Suresh Pagare, Age : 28 years, Occu. Sweeper, R/o Ambedkarwadi, Near Nasadi Bridge, Nasik Road, Nasik. ....Applicant. Versus 1 Sow. Seema w/o Yogesh Pagare, Age : 24 years, Occu. Household, R/o At present Dada Colony, Kailasnagar, Aurangabad. 2 Sahil s/o Yogesh Pagare, Age : 7 years, Minor, U/g of Petitioner No.1. ...Respondents. Sk. Ashpak Taher Patel, Advocate for applicant. Shri S.R. Dheple, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 26 th August, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-24/2009 filed by respondents seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. 2. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The respondent No.1 filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for herself and for her minor son, alleging that she was harassed and ill treated by the revision applicant / her husband and was ultimately driven out of the house. She also asserted that she was unable to maintain herself and her son and that the appellant had sufficient means to provide her maintenance. She alleged that the applicant was working in private hospital earning a salary of about Rs.8,000/- per month. 3. As against this, the appellant opposed the application merely on the basis of denial. The learned judge having regard to the evidence that has come on record, held that the respondents have succeeded in showing that the applicant had failed and neglected to look after them and that they had no means of survival. Having regard to the evidence, the learned judge of the lower Court awarded Rs.1,000/- per 3 month each to the respondents. This order is challenged in this revision. 4 The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that the respondents could not prove their case that the applicant had salary of Rs.8,000/-. He pointed out that in the cross examination, the respondent No.1 admitted that she had no documentary evidence to support her case that the salary of the applicant was Rs.8,000/-. However, like the learned judge of the lower Court, I am also inclined to ignore this lapse on the part of the respondents. The learned judge of the lower Court recorded cogent reason for not minding this lapse on the part of the respondents. He pointed out that despite opportunities, the applicant did not produce any evidence on record to show his monthly income. It was certainly necessary for the respondent to come out with the positive case as to what his income was. If some one was alleging falsely that he had income of Rs.8,000/- per month, his denial could not have been his word but his denial should have been supported with evidence to indicate as to what his income per month was. The learned judge of the lower Court picked up this laps in the case of the respondents. The case of the 4 respondents was that his income was Rs.2,000/- per month, but this too he stated only on oath. The respondent certainly was in a position to record his employer’s deposition to prove his income. In absence of this, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and order. The revision should fail. ORDER The revision stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) tsk/