1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123/2009. (Sandeep s/o Namdeo Bade Vs. Sanjeevani w/o Sandeep Bade) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.KN Lokhande, Adv. h/for Mr. BV Wagh, Adv. for Petitioner; ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 16 th October 2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. Brother Judge by order dated 3rd of July, 2009 specifically directed that the accused/applicant to deposit the maintenance amount up to 3rd of August, 2009 and on such deposit of the amount, office was directed to issue notice to the respondent, making it returnable on 10th August, 2009. However, the amount was not deposited. Thereafter on 17th August, 2009, after hearing Mr. Wagh, again notice was directed to be issued though there was no deposit in terms of the order dated 3rd July, 2009. There is no response to the notice from the wife. 3. On 9th October, 2009, again Counsel for the husband was helpless as there is no communication from his client and consequently, the matter came to be 2 fixed for hearing today. 4. The wife Smt. Sanjeevani moved the Family Court by Petition No. E-123/2008, seeking maintenance in terms of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. and by order dated 13th January, 2009, the husband is directed to deposit/pay Rs.1200/- per month to the wife from 15.4.2008. 5. The marital status between the parties is not in controversy. The income, to which reference is given by the learned Judge, is not controverted. The husband is sufficiently well placed to make good the amount of maintenance, since he has been serving in fertilizer shop namely -"Aple Krishi", at Sangamner with monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-. He has also agricultural income. Taking these aspects into consideration, I do not see any interference is warranted in the order of maintenance granted by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad. Consequently, no merit, Criminal Revision Application dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv123.09