1 revn642-08.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2008 Santosh Sahadeo Belose .. Applicant v/s. Rekha Santosh Belose & Ors. ..Respondents Mr..C.S.Joshi for the applicant None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th March, 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent herein had filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bandra, being Petition No.E-240 of 2005. The notice of the said application was duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner remained absent on number of occasions. Ultimately, the learned Judge of the Family Court had no alternative but to proceed and decide the matter on merits. The learned Judge has decided the matter on merits. The learned Judge has passed an order on 11.1.2008 and has directed the petitioner to pay to respondent a sum of Rs. 2 revn642-08.sxw 3000/- as well as sum of Rs.2000/- for the maintenance of the minor son Akshay w.e.f. 16.5.2005. 2. This order is challenged by way of criminal revision application. It is to be noted that the petitioner remained absent before the court and that is how the court was required to proceed to hear the matter in the absence of the petitioner. No written statement is filed by the petitioner. The respondent has given evidence affidavit dated 7.11.2007. In the said affidavit she has clearly stated that the petitioner had married another lady and whenever efforts were made to go and stay with the petitioner, the said efforts were unsuccessful on account of the second marriage between the petitioner and other lady. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner is working as Mathadi Kamgar and is getting salary of Rs.7000/-. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner’s father and mother are having immovable properties at Satara and as such there is no question of this petitioner’s responsibility to take care of the parents of the petitioner. The evidence of respondent has gone unchallenged and that is how the learned Judge of the family court has considered the income aspect of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the petitioner is 3 revn642-08.sxw said to be earning salary of Rs.7000/-. The learned Judge of the Family Court, has in my view, considered the requirement of the respondent and her daughter and granted maintenance and in all sum of Rs.5000/- . It is to be noted that while ascertaining the income of the husband, the court is not required to take into consideration the monthly salary of the husband only. The court can always take into consideration the other income of the petitioner, namely income from investments etc. The learned Judge, in my view has taken a reasonable attitude in fixing the maintenance and as such no interference is required in the impugned order. Even otherwise this is not a case where this court should interfere in the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Hence the following order is passed. ORDER i) Revision application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ii) After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for two weeks of stay of this order. Request is rejected. 4 revn642-08.sxw [R.Y.GANOO, J.]