IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.329 OF 2004 Suresh Pandurang Kumbhar ...Applicant Versus Sushma Suresh Kumbhar & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Suvarna Telgote for Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. OCTOBER 15, 2004. OCTOBER 15, 2004. OCTOBER 15, 2004. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the two Courts below with regard to the earning capacity of the Applicant. It is on that basis, the Trial Court directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred) per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) per month to Respondent No.2. That amount has been reduced by the Revisional Court for the reasons : 2 : recorded in the impugned order to Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred) per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred) per month to Respondent No.2. If it is so, no case for interference. 2. Besides, the present proceedings taken out by the Applicant is second Revision Application, which is not available in law. Even otherwise, for the reasons recorded above, no interference is warranted. Rejected. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.