(1) CRI. WP1057.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2010 Eknath S/o Dattatraya Jaware Petitioner VERSUS Sharda W/o Eknath Jaware and anr. Respondents ..... Mr. Nitin K. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 13TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned Advocate. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the enhancement of maintenance allowance granted in favour of the respondents. The respondent no.1 is wife and the respondent no.2 is the minor son of the petitioner. In the proceedings, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initially, they were awarded maintenance allowance @ Rs.800/- and Rs.400/- respectively. The order was rendered in 2004. They filed Application for enhancement of maintenance (2) CRI. WP1057.2010 allowance after four years alleging that there was change in the circumstances and the prices of essential commodities had soared which needed more expenses for their livelihood. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence tendered by the spouses and partly allowed the Application filed under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate held that the respondent no.1 was entitled to enhancement of Rs.300/- and the respondent no.2 was entitled to enhancement of Rs.200/- in addition to the maintenance allowance which was awarded earlier. Accordingly, the Application was partly allowed. The petitioner filed Revision Application vide Criminal Revision Application no.43 of 2009. The revisional Court dismissed the said Revision Application vide impugned order dated 31.7.2010. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is prima facie illegal and requires interference. I do not agree. The hike in the prices of essential commodities can be taken judicial notice of. So also, it has come on the record that the petitioner owns a motorcycle. It (3) CRI. WP1057.2010 cannot be denied that possession of a motorcycle is ordinarily difficult for a poor man who claims himself to be without wherewithals. It is of common knowledge that in the proceedings for maintenance allowance, the husband has tendency to demonstrate that he is being poorest of poor, whereas the wife has tendency to show that he is a rich person. The Court is required to strike balance between the competing contentions and what has been done by the Courts below, no perversity is noticed. 4. The Petition is outside the purview of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp