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.1477 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2008. Mr. Balaram Dharam Patil. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Amit A. Jambholkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. D.R. More, APP, for the Respondents. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 22ND JULY,2008. : 22ND JULY,2008. : 22ND JULY,2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner husband has challenged the order passed on a application made by his wife and son under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.700/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the minor son till he attends the majority. The said order has been confirmed by the revisional court. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when the application under section 125 of the said Code was filed by the wife and the son, the petitioner was not in the employment. He submitted that now the petitioner has been reinstated, but the average monthly salary which he gets is only Rs.5,000/-. He submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error by holding that the petitioner must be getting some income from the agricultural land though there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was getting any income from the agricultural land. It is stated that evidence was produced before the learned Magistrate that the auto-rickshaw held by the petitioner was lost. He submitted that the petitioner has to maintain himself and his sister and therefore, the amount of maintenance granted is on the higher side. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. Even according to the case of the petitioner, his average monthly income by way of salary is Rs.5,000/-. There may not be specific evidence on record as regards any specific amount received by the petitioner by way of income from the agricultural land. However, the fact remains that the name of the petitioner appears as a co-owner in the 7/12 extracts relating to paddy lands. Apart from all this, the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, the total maintenance amount of Rs.1,700/- fixed by the Trial Court is reasonable and no interference is call for. 4. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. On the prayer made by the petitioner, time of four weeks is granted to him to clear the arrears of maintenance and therefore, for a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of arrears of maintenance. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]