1 Cri.Appl.No.2073 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2073 OF 2005 Madhav S/o.Namdeo Rode, Age-30 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Manik Nagar, Parali Vaijnath, Tq.Parali Vaijnath, Dist. Beed APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Hema W/o.Madhav Rode, Age-26 years, Occu-Household, R/o.C/o.Sahebrao Shingare, Rajgrah Niwas, Ajanta Nagar, HADCO, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani RESPONDENTS Mr.J.M.Murkute, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.A.R.Nikam, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 07/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, the applicant/husband has approached this Court to quash and set aside the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.24/2003 dated 08/07/2005, by which Rs.1500/- was awarded as a monthly maintenance to respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 each. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in this application on 2 Cri.Appl.No.2073 of 2005 17/11/2005. Heard learned counsels for respective parties. 3. The relationship between the parties is not under dispute. It is also not under dispute that respondent no.2 is begotten from the wedlock of the applicant and respondent no.1. It is also not under dispute that the respondent no.1 had filed an application u/s. 125 of The Cr.P.C. for maintenance in the Court of J.M.F.C. Parbhani vide Criminal Misc. Application No.219/2001. The said application came to be allowed and to challenge the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Parbhani, the respondents herein have approached the Court of Revision for enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court while the applicant herein approached the Revisional Court for reduction of the maintenance amount. The revision filed by the applicant was dismissed while the revision filed by the respondents was allowed by modifying the order passed by the Trial Court by enhancing the maintenance amount of respondent no.2 to the tune of Rs.1,500/-. The only question require consideration is that while modifying the order passed by the Trial Court, whether the Revisional Court has considered the evidence lead by the parties before the Trial Court and properly appreciated it. In para no.15 of the judgment of the Revisional Court, it is observed that, “So far as sufficiency of means is concerned, it is not disputed that the respondent is a Senior Lecturer in Vaijnath College, Parli and is drawing salary of Rs.13,000/- p.m. at the material time ad after all the deduction, applicant is drawing monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- per month.” Considering this evidence brought on record, Revisional 3 Cri.Appl.No.2073 of 2005 Court awarded monthly maintenance in favour of both respondents in the sum of Rs.1,500/- each. Considering the evidence of record, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Revisional Court in paragraph no.15 and 16 of the order impugned dated 08/07/2005. Even though it is tried to urge that the copy of the salary certificate annexed at Exh.’C’ to the application which shows that the applicant is drawing last salary lesser than the amount of the maintenance awarded by the Revisional Court, this Court is not in agreement with these submissions across the bar that the loan was obtained by the applicant and paying monthly installments of loan. This is an attempt on the part of applicant to create a record to impress the Court that he is not drawing the monthly salary worth to pay the maintenance amount as awarded by the Revisional Court. These tactics are not permissible in Law. Considering the only point involved in this matter, I do not find any merit in the application, hence stands rejected with no order as to costs. 4. Rule stands discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.appl.2073-05