JUDGMENT - Parkar S.S., J.:—This writ petition arises in the maintenance proceedings adopted by the petitioner-wife under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is wife of the respondent No. 1. They had two daughters from their marriage. The marriage had taken place in June 1970 and she had left the matrimonial house in the year 1974 and the husband seems to have contracted second marriage in the year 1975. The petitioner-wife however, did not apply for maintenance until the year 1988. By filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 73 of 1988 in the Court of JMFC, Jaysinghpur in Sangli District she claimed maintenance which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 13-9-1989 granting maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 500 /- per month. The husband challenged the same by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 176 of 1989 in the Sessions Court, Kolhapur. The same was heard and decided by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur who was pleased to allow the said revision application partly and reduce the maintenance amount from Rs. 500 to Rs. 400 per month. The wife has challenged the said order reducing of maintenance in this writ petition. 3. Ms. Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-wife has contended that when the husband is remarried and is having other source of income apart from his salary, the order passed by the JMFC was absolutely legal and ought not to have been interfered in the revisional jurisdiction by the Sessions Court. She further submitted that there was no reason for the Sessions Court to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500 to Rs. 400 when the husband had already remarried illegally and having sufficient sources of income to pay the said amount. 4. After perusal of the judgments of the two courts below what I find is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has considered only the income of the husband from the salary. As stated in para 21 of the trial Court's judgment the husband was getting salary of Rs. 2,900/- per month. He was constructing a house for which he had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- and had to repay instalments of Rs. 1,450/- per month leaving in his hand Rs. 1,450/- per month out of the salary. As stated in para 21 of the trial Court's judgment the husband was getting salary of Rs. 2,900/- per month. He was constructing a house for which he had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- and had to repay instalments of Rs. 1,450/- per month leaving in his hand Rs. 1,450/- per month out of the salary. According to the Sessions Court the husband had to maintain two daughters from first marriage who were admittedly staying with the husband and had to repay the construction loan. 5. In my opinion the repayment of loan will not be a permanent feature. Apart from that the Sessions Court does not seem to have considered at all the other sources of income of the husband which was discussed by the trial Court. The wife had adduced evidence to show that the husband was running a poultry farm in his land situated in Survey No. 37 at Miraj which was admitted by the husband. However, the husband's case seems to be that he was a partner in the said poultry farm and the partnership had discontinued. The husband has, however, not adduced by any evidence to show that he had discontinued the said business itself as mentioned in para 22 of the judgment of the trial Court. That poultry farm was being run in the land of the husband himself and, therefore, he cannot simply withdraw from the partnership unless it was discontinued. Secondly, the trial Court has also considered that the husband was owning 88 Rs land at Miraj which would show that the husband was having sufficient income from other sources to be able to purchase the said land. The possible sources of other income were not at all considered or even touched in the judgment of the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has simply considered the source of income from the salary which the husband was getting. In that view of the matter the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in reducing the amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month. In the circumstances, the order of the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result this writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge was not justified in reducing the amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month. In the circumstances, the order of the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result this writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 176 of 1989 on 4-5-1991 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 13-9-1989 passed by the JMFC, Jaysinghpur is Cri. Misc. Application No. 73 of 1988 is restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Writ petition allowed. -----