1 CRI-403-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.403 OF 2011 Hiraman Kisan Darade ..Petitioner Vs Sau. Sangita Hiraman Darade and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Ashok Gade, for petitioner. Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, for respondents. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.Ashok Gade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2] By this petition, the petitioner – husband has challenged the judgment and order dated 8 th October, 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.7 of 2006 as also the judgment and order dated 1 st 2 CRI-403-11.sxw January, 2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malegaon in Criminal Revision Application No.155 of 2008. By these orders, the application made by the respondent nos.1 and 2 for enhancement of maintenance was allowed. 3] Earlier on application made by respondent no.7 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to the first respondent – wife at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and to the second respondent – son at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from the date of application. Subsequently, respondent nos.1 and 2 claimed enhancement in the amount of maintenance to Rs.1,500/- to each of them. The learned Magistrate enhanced the maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month each to respondent nos.1 and 2 from the date of application. The revision preferred by the husband was dismissed by the Sessions Court. It is against these two orders, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4] Perusal of the impugned order indicates that after appreciating the material on record, the Courts below have enhanced the amount of maintenance. Mr.Gade submitted that the first respondent is the 3 CRI-403-11.sxw second wife and therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance. This aspect was considered by the Courts below and it was recorded that in the earlier round of litigation there was a positive finding recorded to the effect that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner now to contend that she is not a legally wedded wife. He further submitted that the petitioner is working as Mapadi (Weighman) and without considering his income, the amount of maintenance is enhanced. I do not find substance in this submission. On the basis of the evidence laid by respondent nos.1 and 2, the Courts below have enhanced the amount of maintenance. The petitioner has not brought on record his income. He has also not brought on record any other material to falsify the claim of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said that the maintenance awarded by the Courts below is either exorbitant or unreasonable. The petition, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]