1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 2010 Himmatrao s/o Saluba Dabhade, Aged 65 years, Occupation Social Worker, R/o Phulenagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Applicant V E R S U S Sumanbai w/o Himmatrao Dabhade, Aged 50 years, Occupation Household, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad Respondent Mr. V.S. Borkar, Advocate for the applicant CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 9th September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 83 of 2009, which was filed by the respondent under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of maintenance amount. This application was filed against the present applicant. 2. The relationship between the parties is admitted. It is further admitted that previously in 2006, the parties arrived at compromise and the applicant agreed to pay Rs.500/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent / his wife. After three years, the present application for enhancement was made, on the ground that due to inflation, an amount of Rs.500/- was insufficient. The respondent demanded Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance. It is 2 further an admitted fact that the applicant at the time of filing of the application, in 2009, was a Municipal Corporator, and was getting honorarium of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further admitted that in April, 2010, the term of the applicant as Corporator come to an end, and, it seems, he is not now a Corporator. The respondent orally asserted that the applicant had business of sale of plots of land and has substantial income per month. She also asserted orally that the applicant has a house, which should be worth Rs.15,00,000/-. On the other hand she said, she is partially blind and is unable to earn for her livelihood due to her old age etc. Opposing the application, the applicant took up a stand that he has no income from any source and has been staying in a small hutment locality with his other wife and minor children. The learned Judge rejected the applicant’s contention and held that the applicant had sufficient income to pay enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent. I find no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below. The revision should therefore fail. The revision stands dismissed. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/cra/224/10/9910