1 wp 2404 10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.2404 of 2010 Ramdas Chandrakant Chitragar .. Petitioner v/s. Chidambar Ramdas Chitragar & Another ..Respondents Mr.N.V.Kalantri i/b. Shekhar Bhise for the Petitioner . Mr.Rahul Walvekar for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 18th March, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed application against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Judicial Magistrate I Class at Gargoti (hereinafter referred to as the said Court) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No.32 of 2007. The said Court by judgment and order dated 20.2.2009 rejected the said application. This was done after hearing the parties and giving opportunity to place before the Court appropriate evidence. Being aggrieved by this Order dated 20.2.2009 the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.80 2 wp 2404 10.sxw of 2009 in the Sessions Court at Kolhapur. The learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Kolhapur by his order dated 29.1.2009 dismissed the said application against which this revision has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both the courts have committed error and the same are required to be rectified in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the court below ought to have considered the financial status of the petitioner and ought to have granted maintenance. He also submitted that the petitioner is about 60 years old and he was unable to maintain himself. 2. After having gone through the entire record, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. In the body of the application there is nothing stated specifically that on the date of the application the petitioner was without any specific income. Infact, the petitioner engages himself in manufacturing turbans and other handicraft articles. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has stopped that activity on account of his age. He has not stated in detail as to what is his income from the said activity. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is in possession of a large house and it is just 3 wp 2404 10.sxw possible that a part of it can be let out and the petitioner can earn money. This is so because the members of the family including the wife of the petitioner are not residing at the address where the petitioner is residing and he is in control of a large property. The ability to let out part of his house and earn money has been rightly considered by both the courts below. In my view, the courts below have appreciated the matter in its proper perspective and rightly rejected the claim of maintenance . No interference from this court is required. Hence the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]