1 REVN 290/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 290 OF 2010 Juhid Husain M. Sayed .. Petitioner Vs. Zakir Husain J. Sayed & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R. U. Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. Shubhangi Vaidya for the Respondents. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 16th September, 2010 P.C. 1. This Application is filed by the Petitioner father resisting maintenance payable to his visually handicapped son. The Petitioner father admittedly lives in Rajasthan. He owns agricultural land. He has timber business. He supplies wood for funerals. His first wife expired. He has remarried. He has 3 children from his second marriage. He lives in joint family. The Respondent son lives with his grandparents. 2. Upon these admitted facts itself, the learned Judge was to consider the maintenance application. Further it was brought out in evidence that the Petitioner has money lending business. He has 2 trucks and 1 tractor trolly. He has 4 bricks furnaces. He did not file any documents to show these business. There was not even a suggestion in the cross-examination of the son that he did not have money lending business or the bricks furnace. The evidence shows that the Petitioner is having wood cutter machine and his brother is sitting on 2 REVN 290/10 the wood stall. The Petitioner herein has referred to certain government policy for not getting wood. The policy is not shown. He owns agricultural land. 7/12 extracts are produced. Learned Judge has considered the entire evidence in its right perspective. This was upon the application of the Petitioner herein for modification of the amount of maintenance previously granted. The previous amount was Rs.5,000/-. That was granted ex- parte. It was contended that that was without notice. Hence his application for modification was considered and the amount was modified to Rs.3,000/- payable per month. The amount is correctly considered. There is no material irregularity. It does not require any further modification. 3. In fact it is rather a matter of shame that the Petitioner’s father has been in arrears of more than Rs. 1,30,000/- and claims that the petitioner has a telephone booth from Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana and earns some amount. There is nothing to show this aspect. Nothing was produced in the evidence. None can, therefore, be relied upon or agitated upon in Writ Petition for the first time. The fact that the son obtains a benefit from the Niradhar Yojana shows that though he has his legal and natural guardian alive, he has not been cared for or maintained as required under the law. 4. The Application is completely without merits and is, therefore, dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)