1 Cri.Appl.No.1820 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1820 OF 2004 Raghunath Pandit Patil (Hatkar) Age-33 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Udane, Tal.Dist. Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS Banubai W/o.Raghunath Patil (Hatkar) Age-29 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Degaon, Tal.Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule RESPONDENT Ms.Archana S.Deo, learned counsel for the applicant.(Absent) Mr.Shrimant Mundhe h/f. Mr.S.P.Brahme, learned counsel for respondent/State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 07/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. In this application, Rule was issued on 15/12/2004. 2. By the present application, the applicant/husband has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 06/05/2004 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.159/2003 and 169/2003, by which the order passed by the learned Trial Court was modified and the applicant herein was directed to pay the maintenance to the tune of 2 Cri.Appl.No.1820 of 2004 Rs.750/- per month to the applicant from the date of application. There is con-current finding about the illtreatment as well as the present applicant neglected to maintain the respondent even though having sufficient means. On perusal of the observations in the judgment of the Revisional Court, particularly in para no.11 and 12, it reveals that the respondent herein have brought documentary evidence on record to show the income, which the applicant is earning. The applicant is serving as a Head-Master in the Ashramshala of Balhane. The documentary evidence was not only brought on record by the respondent, but were proved by examining the Jr.Clerk working in the office of Social Welfare Department. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the Revisional Court has modified the order passed by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence produced by the respondent. After going through the judgment and order passed by the Revisional court, which is impugned in this application, we do not find any perversity in the said order. In the premise, application is sans any merits, hence rejected. 3. Rule discharged. R & P be sent back to the court concerned immediately. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.appl.1820-04