..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2007 Basavraj Nivrutti Mali. ..Petitioner. Versus Versus Versus 1. Sou.Lata Basavraj Mali, 2. Kum.Swati Basavraj Mali, & 3. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. .. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Adv. for the Petitioner. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP, for the Respondent No.3-State. .. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2008. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2008. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. 2. The petitioner-husband has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of enhancement of maintenance granted to his wife i.e. respondent No.1 and his daughter i.e. respondent No.2. ..(2).. 3. The background of this matter is that on account of desertion by the petitioner, his wife-respondent No.1 Lata and his daughter-respondent No.2 Swati initially filed an application for maintenance and the same was numbered as Criminal Misc.Application No.88 of 1990. The said application was decided by the learned J.M.F.C., Sangli by judgment and order dated 15th November, 1991. By the said judgment and order, the learned JMFC, Sangli awarded maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.150/- per month to respondent No.2-daughter respectively. The said judgment and order ultimately acquired finality and almost after 13 years of passing of the said judgment and order, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e. wife and daughter of the petitioner, filed Criminal Misc.Application No.54 of 2003 for enhancement of maintenance. Evidence was led and on the basis of the evidence led, the learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2005 enhanced the maintenance granted to respondent No.1-wife from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.1000/- per ..(3).. month and to respondent No.2-daughter from Rs.150/- per month to Rs.700/- per month. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2005 before the Court of Session, Sangli. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 6th March, 2007 dismissed the Revision Application. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned JMFC, Sangli dated 3rd February, 2005 and judgment and order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli this Petition has been preferred. 4. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that the petitioner is running one poultry farm and he also has different agricultural lands wherein he is taking cash crops like sugarcane, soybean etc. The 7/12 extract in respect of the said lands is at Exh.24. Looking to the evidence on record, I find that sufficient material has been brought on record to establish that the petitioner-husband has sufficient source of income. The learned JMFC has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.700/- per ..(4).. month to respondent No.2-daughter. Nothing has come on record that respondent No.1-wife has any means to support herself and her daughter, respondent No.2. Whereas on the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner-husband has sufficient source of income to be able to afford maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.700/- per month to respondent No.2-daughter. The maintenance to respondent No.1-wife has been enhanced from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.1000/- per month. Rs.1000/- per month means Rs.33/- a day. That means Rs.16.50 for morning meals and Rs.16.50 for evening meals. This amount of maintenance cannot be termed as excessive or extremely harsh. Infact, it is very difficult for any grown up lady to maintain herself on such a paltry sum of Rs.33/- a day. So far as the maintenance to the daughter is concerned, it is enhanced from Rs.150/- per month to Rs.700/- per month. For a grown up girl of about 14 years who is attending school, Rs.700/- per month cannot be termed as an excessive amount of maintenance. Thus, considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Revision Application has been ..(5).. rightly dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. No interference with both the impugned orders is called for. Hence, the petition is rejected. 5. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that respondent No.2-Kum.Swati i.e. daughter of the petitioner has committed suicide on 2nd February, 2007. In this view of the matter, obviously from the date of the death of respondent No.2-daughter no maintenance would be payable to respondent No.2-daughter. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)