Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing immediately. 2. The respondent-wife along with her children had filed application for maintenance in the Family Court at Nagpur being petition No. E-2643 of 1996. That application was decided on 20/4/2000 and the request for maintenance by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. 3. It is admitted by and between the parties that compromise materialised between the applicant and the respondent and they started staying together w.e.f. 12/9/2003. They stayed for about six months and thereafter the respondent left the house of the applicant on the ground that applicant had treated the respondent with cruelty. The applicant had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad. In the said petition maintenance was awarded in favour of the respondent. The said petition came to be dismissed on 10/7/2006. It is noticed that the respondent, in the year 2006 had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cri. P.C. in the Family Court being petition No. E-80 of 2006. This application was filed because the respondent was treated with cruelty after she has joined the applicant pursuant to the compromise which had materialised on 12/9/2003. The parties led evidence before the Court and the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant had treated the applicant with cruelty, and therefore, the respondent was entitled to maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the income of the applicant and decided the application and by order dated 09/01/2008 granted maintenance in favour of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. March, 2006. This order dated 09/01/2008 is challenged in this revision application. 4. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the applicant had treated the respondent with cruelty after she had joined the company of the applicant. Even, conduct on the part of the applicant clearly indicates that he wanted to maintain his wife and as such proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights were filed by the applicant which came to be dismissed for default wherein order of maintenance was granted in favour of the respondent. 5. Even, conduct on the part of the applicant clearly indicates that he wanted to maintain his wife and as such proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights were filed by the applicant which came to be dismissed for default wherein order of maintenance was granted in favour of the respondent. 5. On consideration of the entire record, the learned Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. 6. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Khamborkar for the applicant. He tried to point out on the basis of evidence that the applicant had not treated with cruelty. So far as this aspect is concerned, I am not inclined to accept this argument. There is a positive finding given by the learned Judge of the Family Court that cross examination of the respondent is not shattered so far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned. If this is so, it is not open for the applicant to say that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed wrong while recording affirmative finding on the point of cruelty. 7. Insofar as the question of maintenance is concerned, according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, at the time when the evidence was being recorded, the applicant was not getting sufficient money in his hand and the figure quoted in the judgment appears to be not proper. According to him, if his income itself was insufficient to pay maintenance to the respondent as well as to the children, the order of maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- was on a higher side. This, of course, was stated without prejudice to his argument that no order of maintenance could have been granted. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. In my view, the stand taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court so as to fix the maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- is reasonable. The applicant is working as Tracer in Public Works department of Government of Maharashtra. It appears that the applicant is contributing to the Provident Fund in excess of his responsibility. This conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In my view, a person who earns by way of salary has to adjust his savings keeping in view the minimum requirements of his wife and children. It appears that the applicant is contributing to the Provident Fund in excess of his responsibility. This conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In my view, a person who earns by way of salary has to adjust his savings keeping in view the minimum requirements of his wife and children. It is not open for a husband to keep investing money in various schemes and then claim to have no sufficient money to look after the family. In my view, the figure of Rs. 1,000/- per month towards maintenance is reasonable and no interference is required. 9. A faint attempt was made by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the respondent has her source of income. This cannot be accepted because before the learned Judge of the Family Court no evidence whatsoever in this respect has been produced. Surely, if something was placed before the learned Judge of the Family Court, he would have considered it in the proper perspective. To that extent the argument is rejected. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision application cannot be granted and rule is required to be discharged. 11. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for the applicant seeks liberty to apply for reduction in the amount of maintenance. In my view no such liberty is required to be granted. It is open for the applicant to attend to the matter as he may be advised. Rule is discharged.