Order 310726revn218.24 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 218 OF 2024. Shubham Santosh Irshid -VERSUS- Sau.Manisha Shubham Irshid and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri S.U. Bhuyar, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2026. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. 2. The applicant is challenging the order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the Family Court, Buldhana in Petition No.E-84/2023, whereby Rs.8000/- per month was granted to the wife and child towards maintenance from the date of application i.e. 19.12.2023. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is pursuing his studies and does not have any source of income, however, the learned Family Court has granted Rs.8000/- per month towards maintenance to the non- applicants. He submits that in such circumstances, the Family Rgd. Order 310726revn218.24 2 Court has miserably failed to take into consideration the source of income of the applicant and therefore, only to the extent of quantum of maintenance amount, the said order is challenged. Thus, prays for quashing of the said order. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment and order, as also the material placed before me in the form of evidence. It appears from the same that the applicant is 24 years of age and he has performed marriage with the non-applicant no.1 at an early age, from the said wedlock the son /non-applicant no.2, aged 3 years was born . It further appears from the evidence that so far as the marriage is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It further appears that the marriage was performed at 5 Star Hotel. At this stage it is relevant to mention that there are landed properties, as well as business in the family of the applicant. The property is in the name of his father, and he is the only son. In view of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the applicant has sufficient means and it cannot be said that does not have any source of income. Even if it is presumed that all the properties are in the name of his father, the fact remains that the applicant is the only son. Further even if it is presumed that father is not giving a single pie to the applicant, still it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain his wife and son , since he is an Rgd. Order 310726revn218.24 3 able bodied person. In such circumstances, after going through the entire material on record, I do not find any perversity, infirmity or error apparent on the face of record. The impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference, as a result, the revision application fails and is accordingly rejected. JUDGE Rgd.