*1* 906revn306o19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2019 SURYAKANT S/O. MADHAVRAO ATKORE VERSUS USHA W/O. SURYAKANT ATKORE ... Advocate Tanuja D. Dhage i/by Ms. Rasal Asha Sanjay, Advocate for the Applicant. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 22 September 2026 P. C. :- 1. The applicant/ husband is challenging the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nanded, in Petition No.E-133/2017 whereby, the applicant/ husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent/ wife from the date of the petition i.e. 16.11.2017. 2. This matter was listed for the first time before this Court on 18.08.2026 though was filed in the year 2019. Since nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicant, therefore, this matter was kept on 25.08.2026. On 25.08.2026, the learned advocate for the applicant sought time for obtaining instructions 2026:BHC-AUG:42959 *2* 906revn306o19 from the applicant. Again this matter was listed on 08.09.2026 and the learned advocate sought time on the ground that she could not establish contact with the applicant. Even today, the learned advocate for the applicant states that she could not establish contact with the applicant. 3. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the applicant, the matter was heard. It is found that the marriage between the couple took place before 27 years of the filing of the petition for maintenance. The learned Family Court in the petition filed by the respondent/ wife directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court observed that the applicant is working as truck driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The parties have got separated since last 16 years. Since the respondent/ wife is staying separately and unable to maintain herself, the amount of Rs.4000/- was granted by way of maintenance. After perusing the impugned order, I find that the said order is correct and proper and requires no interference. 4. In view of the above discussion, I find that no error, *3* 906revn306o19 much less any manifest illegality or perversity, is committed by the Family Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision Application, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )