*1* 927rev20o26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2026 DAYANAND SHIVRUDRA SWAMI VERSUS SHILPA DAYANAND ALIAS SANTOSH SWAMI AND OTHERS ... Shri Salunke Jay Subhash, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Bolkar Yogesh B., advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 25 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. By this revision, the applicant/ husband seeks an exception to the judgment and order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nanded, in Petition No.E- 113/2022 thereby, the said petition is partly allowed and the applicant is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent/ wife from the date of filing petition i.e. 04.08.2022 and Rs.8000/- per month to each child. Thus, total Rs.28000/- per month have been directed to be paid towards maintenance. 2. According to the respondents, there is family dispute 2026:BHC-AUG:38689 *2* 927rev20o26 between the parties and the respondents/ claimants, who are wife and minor children of the applicant herein, have filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to each child. The respondents claimed that they are totally dependent on the applicant’s income and they do not have separate source of income for day to day maintenance. The applicant is serving as Senior Regional Manager in ICICI Bank at Pune and earning salary of more than Rs.1.50 lac per month. The children are admitted in reputed school and towards educational expenses, huge amount is required. Therefore, they filed the said petition for maintenance. 3. The applicant/ husband has filed the reply before the Family Court pointing out that though he is working as Senior Regional Manager in ICICI Bank, he is required to maintain his old aged parents and therefore, requires substantial amount towards medical expenses. The learned Family Court vide the impugned order partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents/ claimants and thereby, granted maintenance as stated herein above. Hence, the applicant is before this Court in *3* 927rev20o26 this revision. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error by not appreciating evidence brought before it by the applicant. The amount of maintenance is highly exorbitant. The respondents have failed to establish before the Family Court that their day to day expenses require so much amount and without appreciating evidence in proper perspective, the learned Family Court has granted maintenance. Learned advocate for the applicant specifically argued that the impugned order came to be passed without hearing him and on the date of hearing, he was absent and therefore, the applicant may be given an opportunity of hearing. On these grounds, learned advocate prayed for quashing the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents submits that the applicant is working as Senior Regional Manager in ICICI Bank and earning more than Rs.1.50 lac per month. Apart from salary income, he is also earning Rs.10,000/- per month from other sources including agriculture income. The amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Family Court *4* 927rev20o26 is quite reasonable and requires to be maintained. The respondents have not approached to the Court by filing the application for enhancement. The amount has been granted after considering the material places before the Family Court. Therefore, according to learned advocate, the impugned order is correct and proper and requires no interference. 6. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and going through the impugned order, it is evident that the applicant/ husband is working with the ICICI Bank and on the post of Senior Regional Manager, which fact is not disputed. Net salary income of the applicant is also not disputed. The amount awarded towards maintenance of the wife and two minor children, having regard to the income of the applicant and the requirements of the dependants, cannot be said to be so excessive or unreasonable as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. The impugned order also discloses that the applicant/ husband was given an opportunity of hearing to adduce evidence on several occasions, however, the applicant remained absent. Therefore, the Family Court closed evidence of *5* 927rev20o26 the applicant. Thus, though the applicant was granted time and sufficient opportunity, however, he has chosen not to appear before the Family Court. Thus, the contention of the applicant that the impugned order was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing is not borne out from the record. Having failed to avail the opportunities granted by the Family Court, the applicant cannot now contend that the impugned order is vitiated for want of hearing. No breach of principles of natural justice is, therefore, made out. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Family Court has considered the material available on record and has assigned reasons for awarding maintenance. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity is demonstrated warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The applicant has also failed to show any sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned order. Hence, no interference is called for. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )