ash 1 crwp-3505.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3505 OF 2010 Shripad @ Milind Gyaneshwar Kulkarni .. Petitioner Vs Supriya Shripad Kulkarni and Others. .. Respondents ­­ Shri S.A. Kumbhakoni for the Petitioner. Shri H.J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent No.3. ­­ CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 17TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner husband has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by which the Petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,500/­ to his wife and monthly allowance of Rs.800/­ to his minor daughter. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was receiving any income from the agricultural land. He submitted that the case made out by the Petitioner was that he had long back closed down his computer institute. He submitted that the first Respondent is gainfully employed in a hospital as a Computer Operator and she has deliberately suppressed the said fact from the ash 2 crwp-3505.10 Court. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. There are two admissions of the Petitioners relied upon by the learned Magistrate. The first admission is that the Petitioner was holding agricultural land admeasuring 2 Hectares and 6 Ares at Village ­Aundhi and that his father has taken the land of one Kanherkar for cultivation for a period of 100 years. The second admission is that the Petitioner was running a computer institute at village Majarewadi, Solapur where he was residing with his mother. 4. The Petitioner has now come out with a case that he has closed down the computer institute. What is brought on record is that the Petitioner is having an agricultural land and the Petition was capable of running a computer institute which has been allegedly closed. 6. As regards the alleged employment of the first Respondent is concerned, no evidence is adduced by the Petitioner. The monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500/­ to the wife of the Petitioner and Rs. 800/­ to his minor son fixed by the learned Magistrate is reasonable and no interference is called for. The Petition is rejected. ( A.S. OKA, J )