1 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.206/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.206 OF 2011 Mahesh s/o Laxman Sonnar ... PETITIONER VERSUS Priti w/o Mahesh Sonnar & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Choudhary, Advocate for petitioner Shri M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent No.3/State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 9th December, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused record. 2. Quantum of maintenance granted to respondent Nos.1 and 2, wife and daughter respectively of the petitioner, by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai in Misc. Criminal Revision Application No.93/2010, on 15.7.2011 has been challenged in the present Criminal Revision Application. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 moved an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being Criminal Misc. Application No.77/2008, in the Court of the learned 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.206/2011 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath for seeking maintenance of Rs.1500/- each. Claim made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was resisted by the petitioner. Eventually, the respondent No.1 examined herself, her father Namdeo Kolekar and her maternal cousin Ravi Shinde in support of her claim. On the other hand, the petitioner examined himself and his witness Ashok Mule. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath, after hearing the parties, granted maintenance of Rs.500/- to each of the respondents (applicants in Criminal M.A. No.77/2008) on 6.9.2010. 4. It appears that, the petitioner did not challenge the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath and acquiesced with the fact that he remained under obligation to pay the maintenance to his wife and daughter, the respondents herein. However, the respondents moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed by preferring Misc. Criminal Revision Application No.93/2010 for correcting the quantum of maintenance granted to them by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai found merit in the respondents’ contention that they deserved maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- each. Considering the inflationary trend and the money required by individual to keep body and soul together, maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month for each of the respondents was awarded by the 3 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.206/2011 learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai, which is under challenge in the present revision petition. 5. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai has ruled in favour of the respondents on extraneous consideration like the letter purportedly from Swami Vivekanand English School, Shirsala, Taluka Parli Vaijnath, District Beed, concerning annual fees for K.G. Standard and the material which was not on record. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent No.1 in clear terms averred on 22.9.2009 that the petitioner was getting agricultural income of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs from 12 acres of irrigated land at village Wani-Sangam and was also earning Rs.7500/- by way of rent from residential as well as commercial/ industrial premises at Sonpeth. There is no challenge to this fact in her cross- examination. Likewise, her cousin Ravi Shinde averred that the petitioner was earning Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to Rs.3 Lakhs and owns irrigated agricultural lands and such other immovable properties. His cross-examination also reveals that this fact of income averred was not in question in his cross-examination. On the other hand, the petitioner was silent in his examination-in-chief while dealing 4 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.206/2011 with the issue of his income. In fact, he knew what was in his purse and what earnings he made and yet, he did not divulge the said facts in his examination-in-chief. As regards the fact of the educational expenses etc. incurred vis-a-vis respondent No.2, his daughter, the petitioner chose to remain silent in his evidence. 7. In this scenario, learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai rightly took judicial note of the prevailing inflation and the standard of income laid down by the State to define poverty and proceeded to grant maintenance as prayed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai that the learned trial Court had arbitrarily awarded meagre amount of Rs.500/- each per month to the respondents were, therefore, not misconceived. No perversity or flaw can be found in the impugned order. Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J.) fmp/crra206.11