1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1286/1996 Trimbak s/o Ganpati Gaikwad, Age : 37 years, Occu. Service, R/o Malhipparga, Taluka Udgir, at present at New Abadi, Degloor Road, Behind Degloor Naka, Udgir, Dist. Latur. ....Applicant. Versus 1 Shobhabai w/o Trimbak Gaikwad, Age : 28 years, Occu. Labour work, R/o at present Undri (PM), Taluka Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 2 Sudhatai d/o Trimbak Gaikwad, Age : 7 years, Minor Under Guardianship of real mother - respondent No.1. 3 Sheshrao s/o Trimbak Gaikwad, Age : 6 years, Minor under guardianship of real mother - respondent No.1. 4 The State of Maharashtra (Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad). ..Respondents. Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for appellant Mr. Prashant K. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent No.4 /State 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 26th August, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1. Heard. 2 This application is moved against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Cri. Revision Application No.40/1995 dated 10th April, 1996. The applicant’s revision application thus was dismissed. 3 The respondents No.1 to 3 had filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mukhed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for demanding maintenance allowance from the applicant. The applicant admittedly is husband of the respondent No.1 and the father of the respondents No.2 and 3. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1985 and two daughters were born to this couple, in next five years. The respondents claim that the applicant neglected to maintain them and that they had no independent income of their own. They further asserted that the applicant had monthly income as Government employee. Both the Courts below accepted their case and directed the applicant to pay Rs.400/- to the respondent No.1 wife and Rs.200/- each to the respondents No.2 and 3 the minor daughters. Both the Courts below held on facts that the applicant had neglected to maintain the respondents. The Courts below also accepted the case of the respondents that the applicant had in the mean time married to a second wife. On the point of income of the 3 applicant, the revisional Court rightly held that the applicant was not disclosing his real income. The learned judge of the revisional Court held that the income of the applicant as Government employee could not be less than Rs.2,000/- per month though he was orally asserting that his salary was only Rs.1200/-. Having regard to these conclusions drawn by the Courts below, there is hardly any scope for interference in the order passed by Court below. ORDER The Criminal Application stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) tsk/