1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3558/2008 ( G. R. Kale .vs. Smt. Rekha G. Kale and one. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JUNE 9, 2009 In view of the absence of the applicant and his advocate, application is dismissed. JUDGE Lateron In view of the counsel for the applicant Mr. C.A. Joshi having appeared and stated that he was held up before the Division Bench, the order of dismissing the matter is recalled and the matter is restored to file. Heard. By the present application the applicant/husband seeks to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for 2 quashing the order dated 20.12.2007 passed in favour of non-applicant no.1 awarding her maintenance at the rate of Rs.650/- per month from the date of an application filed by her on 17.6.2006 under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The further prayer of quashing the order confirming the said order of maintenance passed by the Court of Session, Buldana in Criminal Revision No.9 of 2008 is also made. The sole ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that while fixing the quantum of maintenance, the lower Court has not taken into consideration the financial capacity of the applicant/husband. The learned counsel has thus contended that quantum of maintenance being fixed without cogent evidence on the record, the said arbitrary fixing the quantum deserves to be set aside. After going through the paras 14 and 15 of the order dated 31.7.2008 in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2008 by the Court of Session, it is difficult to accept of there being any substance in the grievance tried to be made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The said reasoning clearly reveals that all the relevant facets were examined by the Court of Session while examining legality and propriety of the order of maintenance passed by the lower Court. The said reasoning amongst others clearly reveals that the fact of the applicant working as a labourer and holding land was taken into consideration by the Court of Session. Similarly a judicial notice of male labour earning Rs.100/- to 150/- per day was also taken into consideration by the Court 3 of Session and on the said basis, a meager amount of Rs.650/- was fixed by the Court of Session as an amount of maintenance for non-applicant/wife. Thus the said amount of maintenance fixed by the lower Court and confirmed in a revision by the Court of Session can neither be said to be exorbitant nor can be said to have been fixed arbitrarily. Thus hardly any ground is made out for exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus there are no merits or any room for exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the application deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE halwai