1 / 4 935-REVN-385-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 935 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 385 OF 2019 Sugandh S-o. Gangadhar Gavhane VERSUS Sonali S-o. Sugandh Gavhane And Others ….. Ms. Shruti Waghmare h/f., Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B., Advocate for Applicant. ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The applicant/husband is challenging the impugned order dated 29 March 2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Nanded, thereby directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to his two minor children towards their monthly maintenance. The said amount was directed to be paid from the date of application, i.e., 26 July 2018. The applicant has challenged the same in this Revision Application on the ground that the applicant was not heard and that the amount directed to be paid by the applicant is excessive. 2. Ms. Waghmare, learned counsel for applicant/husband, Kiran Kawre 2026:BHC-AUG:40192 2 / 4 935-REVN-385-2019 states that the learned Family Court did not consider the fact that the applicant is labourer and does not have a regular salary and, therefore, is unable to bear the monthly maintenance as directed by the learned Family Court. She further submits that the order is patently illegal, which is passed behind the back of the applicant, and hence, she strongly submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant, I have gone through the order passed by the learned Family Court. 4. The respondent No.1 is the wife of applicant herein. The marriage between them took place on 3 June 2011. Out of the said wedlock, they have two children, i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are minors. The respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Nanaded, which came to be registered as Petition No.E-100 of 2018. The respondents have stated in their application that, after the marriage, the applicant had physically and mentally harassed the respondent. The respondents belong to a very poor family and do not have any separate source of income. The respondents also alleged in their application that the applicant Kiran Kawre 3 / 4 935-REVN-385-2019 and his relatives had harassed the respondent/wife on account of demand for dowry from her parents. On the basis of said averments, the respondents have prayed for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondents, in their application at paragraph No.7, have stated that the applicant/husband is employed as a driver and is also working as a broker. Out of the said work, his earnings are more than Rs.25,000/- per month. 5. The learned Family Court at Nanded, while considering the aforesaid application, was pleased to consider that the applicant herein is working as a driver and is earing around Rs.25,000/- per month and, accordingly, passed the impugned order, thereby directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to his two minor children towards monthly maintenance. 6. During the course of hearing of instant Revision Application, no strong and valid grounds have been pointed out so as to disturb the finding of the learned Family Court. 7. As there is no strong ground, this Court is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of this Court in the instant Revision Kiran Kawre 4 / 4 935-REVN-385-2019 Application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is very limited. In that view of the matter, as no illegality has been pointed out and as the amount of maintenance is very meager, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The instant Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) Kiran Kawre