1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.744 Of 2007 Umrao S/o.Vaijnath Kute, Age-40 years, Occu-Labourer, R/o.Pimpalgaon (Hajam), Tq.Basmath, Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Burnkabai W/o.Umrao Kute, Age-35 years, Occu-Household, R/o.C/o.Tanaji Kishanrao Ingole, Kurunda, Tq.Basmath, Dist. Hingoli 2. Sukhdeo S/o.Umrao Kute, Age-12 years, Minor U/G. Of his real mother Nirmalabai W/o.Umrao Kute, Occu-Household, R/o. C/o.Tanaji Kishanrao Ingole, Kurunda, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENTS Mr.M.K.Deshpande, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.D.Karkare, h/f. Mr.S.W.Mundhe, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant 2 husband of deceased respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2 has approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 16/12/2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmath in Criminal Revision Application No.35/2004 by confirming the order passed by the Learned J.M.F.C. Basmath dated 15/11/2003 in M.A. No.201/2000. 2. It further appears that during the pendancy of this application, respondent no.1 expired, which fact brought to the notice of this Court on 15/12/2009. Necessary instructions were given to the counsel for applicant as well as to the respondents that considering the fact that in this scenario whether there are any chances of settlement between the applicant and 2nd respondent. But this effort became futile as there is no amicable settlement arrived between the parties. 3. Such of the facts which are necessary to decide the present application can be summarized as. The relation interse between the parties to the present petition is not under dispute, as deceased respondent no.1 is the wife of applicant and 2nd respondent is the son of applicant. At the material time, the son of applicant i.e. 2nd respondent was minor and still he is minor and is taking education in the Secondary School. It further appears that the deceased 1st respondent filed an application for maintenance u/s 125 of The Cr.P.C. bearing no.207/1998 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Basmath. The said application came to be allowed and the maintenance in the sum 3 of Rs.200/- was awarded in favour of 1st respondent and Rs.100/- per month in favour of 2nd respondent. As the maintenance awarded by the trial court was not sufficient, an application for enhancement of this maintenance amount appeared to be filed bearing no.210/2000. It appears that vide order dated 15/11/2003, the said application for enhancement of maintenance amount came to be allowed by the learned J.M.F.C. Basmath and the maintenance in the sum of Rs. 200/- was enhanced to Rs.500/- in favour of 1st respondent and the maintenance in the sum of Rs.100/- was enhanced to the sum of Rs. 400/- in favour of 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order of enhancement of maintenance, it appears that criminal revision no. 35/2004 came to be filed by the applicant in the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Basmath which came to be rejected vide judgment and order dated 16/12/2006 which is impugned in the present application. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is brought to the notice of this Court that it is the observation of the trial court that applicant is holding 10-12 acres of agricultural land alongwith other family members and considering the source of income from that agricultural land, the enhanced amount of maintenance was awarded. It is observed by the Revisional Court that the documents on record are not supporting these observations of the Trial Court and it is the observation of the Revisional Court that record produced before the Trial Court do not indicate that the applicant is holding any agricultural land or having any source of income from the 4 agricultural land. At the same time, in para no.9 of the impugned judgment, it is observed by the Revisional Court that it is admitted by the applicant in his cross examination that he is earning Rs.35/- per day from the daily wages in the village which comes to Rs.1050/- per month. 5. It is to be noticed in the changed scenario that as the respondent no.1 is no more, the liability to pay the monthly maintenance to the 1st respondent to not survive. Then only the responsibility to pay the enhanced maintenance of Rs.400/- to respondent no.2 remains. Considering the income, which is admitted by the applicant and as the 2nd respondent is taking education in the secondary school, the maintenance to the tune of Rs.400/- is not excessive considering the source of income of applicant. Thus in nutshell, there are no merits in the application. Hence the application sans any merit, and to be dismissed in limine. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.744-07