- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2008 Shri Achyut Somnath Maratkar ... Applicant vs Sou.Shobha Achyut Maratkar... Respondent Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for Applicant Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP for State CORAM: A.S.OKA, J DATED: 30th June, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. The applicant-husband has taken an exception to the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court by which he has been directed to pay monthly allowance of Rs. 1200/- to the respondent-wife in an application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has invited my attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court. He stated that the finding that the applicant is earning Rs.2400/- per month is erroneous and submitted that even assuming that the said finding is correct, there is no justification for fixing maintenance at Rs.1200/-. He submitted that the yardstick which can be applied to a city like Pune could not have been applied to a city like Barshi. - 2 - 3. I have considered the submissions. The case made out by the applicant is that he is working as a labourer. After considering the evidence of the employer of the applicant, the learned Judge on the basis of the admission given by the said employee in cross examination came to the conclusion that the applicant must be receiving a sum of Rs.2400/- per moth. The learned Judge also noted that though the applicant may be a labourer, his father was doing milk business. Therefore the learned Judge came to the conclusion that income of the applicant must be Rs.3000/- per month. 4. Considering all the aspects I find that the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month fixed by the learned Judge is reasonable and no interference is called for. Revision Application is dismissed. A.S.Oka, J - 3 - - 4 -