1 revn220-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Revision Application No. 220 of 2010 Santosh Biharilal Lalbije .. Applicant v/s. Hema @ Ritu Santosh Lalbije & Others ..Respondents Mr. R.N.Sanghvi i/b. Sanghvi & Associates & T.D.Isaac for the Applicant None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th March, 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent has filed application for maintenance for herself, her daughter and her son married out of the wedlock between the respondent and the applicant. The said application is numbered as P.E.No. 486 of 2009 and is pending before the learned Judge of the Family Court. The said application is under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said application at Exhibit 4 has been decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The learned Judge has granted sum of Rs.3000/- for wife respondent and Rs.2000/- per month to each of the child w.e.f. 16.11.2009. 2 revn220-10.sxw 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant is getting salary of about Rs.20.896/-. Deductions are mentioned in the impugned order. It appears that expenses said to be done by the applicant are disproportionate to his responsibilities. The applicant is depositing a sum of Rs,2350/- per month on his own. He is also depositing Rs.500/- per month by way of additional Provident Fund. The applicant’s responsibility to pay the Provident Fund as per the provisions of law would be not more than Rs.70/- as his basic is Rs. 685/-. He has borrowed monies. It is open for the applicant to borrow money. At that same time he has to take care of his wife and children. Last but not the least, it was contended by the applicant that his parents are old. It may be true, but at the same time, the applicant has a brother who should also share the responsibility of the parents. The impugned order dated 11.1.2010 is passed by the learned Judge after taking into consideration all the aforesaid aspects. In my view, the view taken by the learned Judge is right. 3. The applicant claims that the son Punit is not born out of the wedlock between himself and the respondent. This stand just can’t be accepted as petitioner has not filed a suit to seek declaration that 3 revn220-10.sxw the son Punit is illigemate son. At this juncture the stand of the applicant that the son Punit is illigemate cannot be accepted. In my view the impugned order dated 11.1.2010 is correct and no interference is required in the same. 4. Revision Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]