1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2009 Machhindranath Gotiram Chaskar ..Petitioner versus Sau. Poonam Machhindranath Chaskar & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Girish Paryani for Petitioner. Mr. V. A. Shastry for Respondent No. 1. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri – APP for State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA , J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsels for the respondents. 2. This revision application is directed against the Order dated 20th May 2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pune, on the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 from 11th July 2008. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Family Court 2 failed to consider that the four wheeler which was in the name of the petitioner was sold by the petitioner and therefore there was no income in this regard. It is contended that the said contention was rejected by the Family Court only on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the document from R.T.O. pertaining to the transfer of the vehicle. It is contended that the findings recorded by the Family Court are not based on evidence and therefore the order is bad in law. 4. The counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. 5. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsels and perused the impugned order passed. The Family Court in paragraph 14 has observed thus : “14. As per petitioner/wife respt/husband gets income of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. from the agricultural land. In this respect 7/12 extract are filed at Exh. nos. 21 and 22. The extracts show that the agricultural land is in the name of several persons of Chaskar, Devne, Navle, Thorat, Shivne family about 18 to 20 persons. The agricultural land shown is 0.40 R and 2.24 hecter. Thus, the documents do not show that the land belongs to respondent. Further the share of each person is so less that if is not possible to get income of Rs. One Lakh from the land. Therefore, these documents do not help petitioner.” 3 5. The above referred observation clearly shows that the defence of the petitioner was not rejected only on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit relevant documents pertaining to transfer of vehicle. On the other hand the above referred observation show that the petitioner has income from agricultural land. It is in these circumstances the order passed by the Family Court needs no interference. Hence, revision dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.)