(1) CRI.WP. 96.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2010 Shivaji Ganesh Shinde, Age : 26 years, Occu.: Electrician, R/o Sant Gadge Baba Nagar, Parbhani .. Petitioner VERSUS Mandakini Shivaji Shinde, Age : 24 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Karegaon, Taluka and District Parbhani .. Respondent ... Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This Petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is husband of the respondent. He challenges the order rendered by the revisional Court while allowing Criminal Revision Application no. 34 of 2009, whereby maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent was enhanced from Rs.400/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month. (2) CRI.WP. 96.2010 2. The dispute now relates only to the quantum of the maintenance allowance. It is not in dispute that the spouses are incompatible and are residing separately. It appears that the marriage has broken down. The wife has instituted criminal case against the husband for offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and relations are sour. 3. There are concurrent findings about the desertion of the wife and neglect at the hands of the petitioner. It is also the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the petitioner is able bodied and has got sufficient means to provide separate maintenance allowance to her whereas the respondent is unable to maintain herself. 4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, ordinarily the revisional Court ought not to have interferred with the finding of the trial Court. However, the revisional Court noticed that during cross-examination the petitioner admitted that he earns about Rs.3500/- to Rs.4000/- per month by doing work of electric fitting and motor rewinding. The copy of affidavit of the petitioner, alongwith (3) CRI.WP. 96.2010 cross-examination, purports to show that the admission of the petitioner is rather explanatory in nature. He admitted that he was engaged in electric fitting and motor rewinding work. He however, volunteers that he was earning Rs.3500/- to Rs.4000/- per month. He clarified that his father used to do the electric fitting work but due to health problems, his father is unable to carry out the work. This part of his statement is overlooked by the revisional Court. It appears that the petitioner is required to maintain his parents and the father of the petitioner is incapacitated to earn livelihood due to ill health. Obviously, the income earned by the petitioner will have to be appropriately divided towards maintenance of the parents and the wife. Even assuming that the income of the petitioner is approximately Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month then also ordinarily 1/5th of such income can be diverted towards maintenance allowance payable to the wife. The parties belong to lower strata of the society. Considering the attending circumstances, economic condition of the parties, requirements of the wife and the income of the husband as well as his (4) CRI.WP. 96.2010 responsibility to maintain the parents, the revisional Court ought to have reasonably fixed the quantum. It would be fair and proper to fix the quantum of maintenance allowance @ Rs.1000/- per month instead of Rs.1500/- per month. 5. In the result, the Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified and instead of Rs.1500/- per month the quantum of maintenance allowance payable to the respondent is fixed @ Rs.1000/- per month. The remaining part of the impugned order regarding recovery of the difference of the maintenance allowance from date of Application for enhancement and the payment of costs is maintained. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp