* 1 * W.P. 1241.2010 14.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1241 OF 2010 Manjur Ahmad Umar Shaikh ..... Petitioner V/S. Shamshad Sayyad Ahmad Khan & anr. ...... Respondents Ms. Tejasweta Kadam h/f. Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 14th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This Revision Application is preferred to challenge the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Sessions Court as regards the maintenance to be awarded to respondent no.1 under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women’s (Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’). ‘ 2. Respondent no.1 had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 54 of 2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur on 9th July, 2007 for maintenance under Section 3(2) of the Act. That application came to be partly allowed by the trial Court by its judgment * 2 * W.P. 1241.2010 14.7.2011 and order dated 12th April, 2009 with a direction to the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards lumpsum maintenance and return of the gold ornaments weighing 43 gms. The applicant is also directed to a pay a sum of Rs.7500/- being the maintenance amount for 3 months at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month for the iddat period with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month until the applicant pays the amount of maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- and the maintenance for the iddat peeriod of Rs.7,500/-. The trial Court had, however, rejected the claim of respondent no.1 for return of amount of Rs.51,000/- allegedly paid as dowry and of Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards the value of articles given at the time of the marriage. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the applicant preferred a Revision Application before the Sessions Court being Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2009. The Sessions Court rejected the Criminal Revision Application by its order dated 10th February, 2010 holding that the amount of maintenance arrived at by the trial Court is fair and reasonable. Perusal of both the judgments, show that the amount of maintenance fixed by the Court is fair and reasonable. In any case, the decision as regards the quantum of * 3 * W.P. 1241.2010 14.7.2011 maintenance being a concurrent decision on facts, this Court will not interfere with the same, unless the same is pointed out to be absolutely perverse. The learned counsel for the applicant, states that the applicant does not have the means to pay the amount to respondent no. 1. She claims that though the salary of the applicant is Rs.11,000/-, he is only getting a sum of Rs.3,000/- in his hands because of several deductions from his salary. That cannot be a ground for either modification of the order or for setting aside the concurrent findings of facts. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]