( 1 ) 936 cra 264.19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 936 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 264 OF 2019 YOGESH LALCHAND AHIRE VERSUS JAYASHREE YOGESH AHIRE AND ANR ….. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Deshpande Chaitanya C. ….. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 11.11.2025 P.C.:- 1. Though the matter is repeatedly called out even after the recess but none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Deshpande the learned counsel appears for the non-applicants. 2. By the present revision, the applicant/husband takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal No.3/2018, whereby confirming the judgment and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned JMFC, Navapur in Misc. Criminal Application No.344/2015. I have gone through the record. It is not out of place to mention here that the marriage between the present applicant and the non-applicant no.1 was solemnized on 14.07.2013 and out of matrimonial relations they are blessed with a child i.e. present non- 2025:BHC-AUG:30948 ( 2 ) 936 cra 264.19 applicant no.2. However, subsequently it appears that the present non- applicant no.1 was subjected to domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the D.V. Act which led to filing of application no.344/2015 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act at the instance of revision non-applicant no.1. 3. On 29.01.2018, the learned JMFC, Navapur passed the judgment and order after considering the evidence available on record and held that the present revision applicant is fetching salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and also having Mahindra Logan company car bearing no.MH-02-JP-0184. The non- applicant no.1/wife has failed to prove the salary of the applicant/husband and has drawn adverse inference that the applicant was drawing salary of Rs.40,000 per month. 4. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the case of Farzana Ansari V/s. Abid Ali Ansari; 2014 All M.R. (Cri.) 1681, the learned Tribunal granted maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the present revision non- applicant nos.1 and 2 from the date of order which does not appear perverse, illegal, bad in law and no interference is called at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] mubashir