(1) CRI.WP. 971.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 971 OF 2009 Chagan S/o Fakirrao Sarode .. Petitioner VERSUS Mrs. Vimalbai @ Sushilabai W/o. Chaganrao Sarode and anr. .. Respondents ... Mr. Darshan D. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State Mrs. A.S. Mantri, Advocate for the respondent no.1 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order rendered by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision Petition no. 208 of 2007. 2. The petitioner and the respondent no.1 are the spouses. Both of them are old aged. The petitioner was held responsible to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1500/- in the proceedings of Misc. Application no.514 of 2006 filed under (2) CRI.WP. 971.2009 section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He retired from the service and, thereafter, submitted an application for modification/alteration of the maintenance allowance in view of changed circumstances under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court considered the change in the circumstances. It was noticed that the petitioner was granted pension of Rs.5000/- per month. It was also noticed by learned Family Court that due to old age now the respondent no.1 also requires medical expenditure in addition to the regular expenditure to meet both the ends to sustain herself. The learned Family Court, therefore, partly allowed the Application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and reduced the maintenance allowance of Rs.1500/- per month to Rs.1200/- per month. 3. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Family Court before the revisional Court. The revisional Court dismissed the revision Application. (3) CRI.WP. 971.2009 4. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and on going through both the orders rendered by the Courts below, it is quite clear that the petitioner is earning monthly pension of Rs.5000/- and that all the relevant changes in the circumstances are duly considered by the Family Court and that there is no perversity in the findings of facts. Wife cannot be left un-attended. There is no serious error committed by the Sessions Court while confirming the order of the trial Court. No interference is called for. The Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp