IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1765 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1765 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.1765 OF 2007. Shri Kacharu Kalu Bidgar. ..Petitioner. versus Sou. Vimalabai Kacharu Bidgar & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Prashant Hagare, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH AUGUST,2008. : 5TH AUGUST,2008. : 5TH AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. The first Respondent is the wife of the Petitioner. The first Respondent and the second Respondent (daughter of the Petitioner) filed an application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application was partly allowed by the learned Magistrate by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the second Respondent from the date of the application. However, the maintenance was denied to the first Respondent. The first and the second Respondents filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Court for challenging the order of the learned Magistrate. The Petitioner herein also filed a separate Revision Application for challenging the - 2 - order of the learned Magistrate. Both the Review Applications were heard together. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the maintenance payable to the daughter to Rs.2,500/- per month. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the maintenance amount granted by the Sessions Court is exorbitant and is not supported by the material on record. 3. I have considered the submissions. It was established before the Courts below that the Petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.11,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. It was found that the Petitioner was an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. It was also found that the Petitioner is the owner of an agricultural land. Considering the income of the Petitioner and the status of the Petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that reasonable maintenance amount payable to the daughter will be Rs.2,500/- per month. The said conclusion is supported by the evidence on record. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is - 3 - accordingly rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]