( 1 ) 912 cra 271.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 271 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2018 SUCHITA DEELIP BADGIRE VERSUS DEELIP DHANANJAY BADGIRE ….. Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mewara Rajesh Hazarilal Advocate for Respondents : Ms. V.T. Karwade h/f. Venjane Tukaram M. ….. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 12.12.2025 P.C.:- 1. By both these applications, the applicants have challenged order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court in Petition E-69/2015 thereby directed the original non-applicant/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the applicant/wife from the date of the judgment. 2. The applicant/wife filed Cri. Rev. Appln. No.271/2018 and prayed for enhancement of monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/- granted under the order dated 20.07.2018. The non-applicant/ husband filed Criminal Revision No.228/2018 and challenged the order of grant of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court, Aurangabad on 20.07.2018. 2025:BHC-AUG:35352 ( 2 ) 912 cra 271.18 3. In both these revision applications a common question arises whether the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of the applicant/wife-original petitioner in Petition E-69/2015 is just and proper. Therefore, both the applications are heard together. 4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through the record. It is not in dispute that on 20.02.2014, the marriage between the applicant/wife and non-applicant/ husband was solemnized as per the customs and rights prevailing in their society. After the marriage, the applicant/wife cohabited with non-applicant at her matrimonial house. However, subsequently, the applicant was subjected to cruetly and domestic violence on account of providing less dowry at the time of the marriage, which resulted in filing of Petition E-69/2015. 5. After considering the evidence available on record as well as proved monthly income of the non-applicant/husband, the learned Family Court passed the impugned Judgment and order on 20.07.2018 and directed the non-applicant/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the applicant/wife from the date of the judgment. ( 3 ) 912 cra 271.18 6. The learned counsel appearing for the original non-applicant/ husband canvassed that the applicant/wife failed to bring documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the non-applicant/ husband, however, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and directed the non-applicant/husband to pay the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, impugned order is illegal, bad in law. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife canvassed that, the non-applicant/husband is working as a Laboratory Technician and drawing income of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. Though, the non- applicant claimed that, applicant wife is getting sufficient income but he failed to prove that the applicant is doing any job and drawing the income. Therefore, considering the income of the non-applicant, the learned Family court granted meager maintenance, hence, prayed for enhancement of maintenance. 8. Needless to say that though the non-applicant/husband claimed that the applicant/wife is running tuition classes and drawing income of Rs.25,000/- per month, however, nothing has been brought on record to prove the monthly income of the applicant/wife. On face of record it prima facie appears that, the non-applicant husband is running a private Pathology Lab and drawing the income. Neither the applicant nor the non-applicant filed ( 4 ) 912 cra 271.18 affidavit disclosing their income. The learned Family Court has passed the impugned order holding that the non-applicant/husband is running the Pathology Lab and he is a Laboratory Technician, hence, considering income of the non-applicant and daily needs of the applicant-wife, the learned Family Court directed the non-applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the applicant wife failed to prove specific income of the non- applicant. Therefore, in absence of income proof, impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, it does not appear that, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are illegal, perverse or bad in law. 9. In view of above discussion, no interference is called to disturb the findings recorded by the learned Family Court. Accordingly, both the revision applications are dismissed. R & P be remitted back to the trial Court. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] mubashir