[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2001 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2001 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2001 Shri Sanjay Sadashiv Lonkar, Residing at Survey No.55, Bhagyodyanagar, Kondawa Budruk, Pune - 411042 .. Applicant (Orig. Respondent) Vs 1. Mr. Viraj Sanjay Lonkar 2. Ms. Pinky Sanjay Lonkar. (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being minor through their natural guardian/mother Resp.No.3) 3.Sau. Savita Sanjay Loankar, Occ. Household/Tailoring. All residing at C/o Shri Uttam Anant Bandal Wadachiwadi., Post Undri, Tal. Haveli, District Pune. ... Respondents (Orig. Applicants) CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2004. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2004. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2004. P.C. . By order dated 16th August, 2004, the petitioner was directed to remove the office objection, failing which the matter be placed on board for dismissal on 24th August, 2004. Till today the office objection is not removed. [2] 2. Even otherwise, the revision directed is against the order dated 24/3/2001, as under section 127 of Cr.P.C.and while allowing the petitioner husband herein was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month to the petitioner No.1, Rs. 400 per month to the petitioner No.2 son and Rs. 300/- to the daughter, totalling Rs. 1500/-. per month. There is no stay to the said order, though the petition was filed on 4/6/2001. The learned Court also found evidence on record that the petitioner herein was doing hotel business and also transport business and has agricultural land.We therefore do not find this to be a case for interference. Revision Petition is dismissed. . Parties concerned to act on a simple copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Stenographer of this Court. [ F.I. REBELLO, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO, J.] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]