( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 2009 Shri Revannath s/o. Namdeo Manmode .. Petitioner Versus Saraswatibai w/o. Revannath Manmode & Anr. .. Respondents Shri B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 22.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is a writ petition filed by husband being aggrieved by order of enhancement of maintenance passed by the II Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, in M.A. No. 59 of 2005, decided on 22.04.2008, which judgment and order is further confirmed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna, in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2008, decided on 06.03.2009. ( 2 ) 2. Now it is admitted position that present petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. The respondents had filed M.A. No. 5 of 1999 for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and maintenance of Rs. 300/- p.m. and Rs. 200/- p.m. to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively was granted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by his order dated 29.08.2000. Thereafter, by order passed in M.A. No. 59 of 2005, decided on 23.04.2008 the amount of maintenance was further enhanced by Rs. 700/- to respondent No.1 and by Rs. 800/- to respondent No.2, thereby maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to each of the respondent is awarded. 3. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2008 challenging said order in the Sessions Court. The Criminal Revision came to be dismissed by order dated 06.03.2009 and it is this order which is challenged in this petition. 4. Adv. Shri Kedar argued that the Court of Magistrate and Sessions Court did not consider if there is any increase in the income of present petitioner, though both have taken ( 3 ) into consideration that there is increase in the prices of essential commodities and amount of Rs. 300/- or Rs. 200 per month was not sufficient. It is also brought on record that the petitioner continued to possess only 4 acres land, but there is nothing on record that his income had increased. Further in his judgment the Additional Sessions Judge has referred to one of the admissions given by the petitioner, wherein he said that there is increase in the prices of necessities. It is also admitted that there is increase in the agricultural income to others but not in the income of the petitioner. 5. As reply to this writ petition the respondents have filed reply-affidavit and stated that besides Gat No. 129/1, which was 1 Hectare 15 R, the petitioner also owns Gat No. 127, which was earlier in the name of his mother Subhadrabai. In-deed, it is now standing in the name of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner got additional ½ share in 3 H 83 R land, which is Survey No. 127 and original 7/12 extracts are produced by both sides. 6. Now, at this stage the learned advocate for the ( 4 ) petitioner states that as per his telephonic instructions, his client has sold Gat No. 129/1 in the year 2005. However, this is something new regarding which there is not a single word in the Trial Court or Revisional Court or in this Court. But, one thing is also clear that the petitioner has also not come with clean hands, in as much as he has not disclosed that he has become owner of Gat No. 127. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not coming with clean hands and concealing the material fact and therefore his telephonic instructions cannot be relied upon. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crwp772.09