IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2714 OF 2008 Shri Gajanan Rajaram Thoke ... Petitioner. V/s. Sau. Surekha @ Bebi Gajanan Thoke & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Sunil Khaire i/by P.N. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish M. Agrawal for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATED : JUNE 19, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent wife. Second to fourth respondents are children of the petitioner. 2. An application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 was made by the first to fourth respondents. The learned Magistrate denied maintenance to the first respondent wife. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 1200/- per month to respondent nos. 2 to 4. The learned Magistrate held that though the petitioner and 2 first respondent are residing separately, there was no reason for the first respondent -wife to reside away from the petitioner- husband and therefore, she was dis-entitled for the maintenance. Separate revision applications were preferred both by the petitioner and the first respondent for challenging the said order. Both the revisions were partly allowed. The maintenance payable to second to fourth respondents was brought down to Rs.900/- from Rs. 1200/- per month. The Sessions Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the first respondent wife at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the learned trial Judge had rightly rejected the prayer made by the first respondent. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the income of the petitioner is more than Rs.3000/- and hence maintenance amount fixed is exorbitant. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Sessions Court has noted that the case made out by the petitioner before the trial court was that the first respondent was doing labour work and was earning Rs. 100/- per day. However, in his deposition the petitioner made out a case that the first respondent was doing money lending business. The Sessions Court observed that there was no evidence on record to show that the first 3 respondent was earning any income. The learned Sessions Judge observed that merely because the first respondent wife was wearing a good dress one cannot come to the conclusion that she has a source of income. 4. The case made out by the first to fourth respondents was that the petitioner was carrying on business and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Sessions Court noted that the petitioner admitted that he has a permit to sell kerosene at Nasik. Considering this admission, the conclusion drawn by the Sessions Court that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 5000/- to Rs.6000/- per month cannot be said to be a perverse conclusion. In fact the learned Magistrate found that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 10,000/- per month. 5. Under the impugned order the total maintenance payable by the petitioner to the 1st respondent wife and children will be Rs. 3,600/- per month. Hence, no case made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J.)