JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed challenging the final judgment and order passed by the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.130/2005 dated 23rd February 2006. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.8.2003 petitioner filed application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.79/2003 for maintenance. In the said application, the petitioner stated that the marriage between petitioner and respondent no.1 solemnized on 12.8.2001. After the marriage of petitioner, she went to the house of respondent no.1 for cohabitation. Initially, respondent no.1 has treated her well for the period of three months. Thereafter respondent no.1 and his family members started harassing the petitioner and also asked to bring money from her parents. The petitioner unable to fulfil the demands of respondent no.1 and his family members, the respondent no.1 and his parents drove the petitioner out of the house after beating her and they did not allow her or permit her for cohabitation with respondent no.1. . The petitioner filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.118/2002 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of that petition, petitioner joined the company of respondent no.1 with the help of mediators but again respondent no.1 has not properly treated her and lastly husband again disallowed her to reside with him. She filed Criminal Misc. Application No.79/2003 against respondent no.1 u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner contended that she has no source of income, the respondent no.1 has not provided anything to her. The J.M.F.C. after considering entire evidence on record partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent no.1 to pay amount of Rs.800/- per month as a maintenance to petitioner-wife. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.79/2003, the respondent no.1-husband preferred Criminal Revision Application No.130/2005 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. . Though initially respondent no.1-husband has challenged the entire order passed in maintenance application no.79/2003, but it appears that thereafter he has only challenged the order passed by the J.M.F.C. upto extent of quantum. . The petitioner has also filed Criminal Revision Application No.110/2005 against the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Shevgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.79/2003 for enhancement of the maintenance amount. . The petitioner has also filed Criminal Revision Application No.110/2005 against the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Shevgaon in Criminal Misc. Application No.79/2003 for enhancement of the maintenance amount. Thereafter, petitioner has filed application before the District and Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar and by order dated 26th August 2005 both the matters transferred in one Court. The Criminal Revision Application No.130/2005 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar is withdrawn and same has been transferred in the Court of 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. 5. On 23rd February 2006, the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar pleased to partly allow the Criminal Revision Application no.130/2005 filed by the respondent no.1 and order of maintenance is modified though, the learned J.M.F.C.Shevgaon after considering entire evidence on record, directed the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.800/- per month as a maintenance to the petitioner. The same order is modified and husband is directed to pay maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.500/- per month. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the revisional Court failed to appreciate evidence on record which shows that respondent no.1 has sufficient source of income to pay amount of Rs.1500/- per month to the wife petitioner. The revisional Court without appreciating the evidence on record unnecessarily reduced the quantum of maintenance and perverse findings are recorded by the revisional Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the findings recorded by the J.M.F.C. and submitted that the J.M.F.C. has correctly recorded the findings in para 29 of its judgment dated 9.5.2005. The learned J.M.F.C. has observed that, the opponent-husband is having source of income. He does not have any other responsibility to carry because of the availability of the source of income to his parents and, therefore, recorded the findings that the maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month will not cause any prejudice to either party. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the respondent-husband is having 10 to 11 acres irrigated land as well as he is doing milk business and he gets annual income of Rs.7 lakhs. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the respondent-husband is having 10 to 11 acres irrigated land as well as he is doing milk business and he gets annual income of Rs.7 lakhs. The learned counsel further submitted that the 7/12 extracts were produced on record at Exhs.23 to 26 before the lower Court to show that there is income to the respondent-husband from the agricultural land and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no reason for the revisional Court to modify the order passed by the J.M.F.C. and direct the respondent-husband to pay Rs.500/- towards maintenance instead of Rs.800/- per month as directed by the J.M.F.C. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband invited my attention to the findings recorded by the revisional court and submitted that in para 9 and 10 of the judgment of the revisional Court, the Court has considered the source of income of the respondent-husband and then came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient source of income to the husband to pay Rs.800/- per month and rightly modified the order of the J.M.F.C. directing the respondent-husband to pay Rs.800/- per month. 9. This Court on 15th July 2008 vacated the ad interim relief granted in favour of the applicant by order dated 20th April 2006, however, directed the respondent-husband to continue to pay Rs.500/- p.m. as directed by the Court below. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at great length and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband. Perused the contents of the application, annexures thereto, record available and impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. The revisional Court in para 9 and 10 has discussed about source of income and in para 11 arrived at the conclusion that the husband has no sufficient source of income to pay Rs.800/- per month to the petitioner-wife. The revisional Court in para 10 has recorded that, the agricultural land is recorded in the name of the father of the opponent-husband. However, the revisional Court came to the conclusion that even though the agricultural land is in the name of the father of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner has substantial income from the above said land. However, the revisional Court came to the conclusion that even though the agricultural land is in the name of the father of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner has substantial income from the above said land. The learned Judge further observed that though it is claimed by the respondent-husband that the petitioner Minabai has also definite source of income, no evidence is brought on record to that effect. 11. On perusal of the reasonings/findings given by the revisional Court while modifying the order of J.M.F.C., I am of the considered view that the revisional Court has not properly considered the contention of the petitioner that there is agricultural land of 11 acres in the family of the respondent-husband in which he has share in it. By any stretch of imagination, direction by the J.M.F.C. to the respondent-husband to pay Rs.800/- to the petitioner-wife was not unreasonable. The J.M.F.C. taking into consideration balance of convenience and hardship faced by the petitioner-wife, came to the conclusion that she is entitled for Rs.800/- per month towards maintenance. The J.M.F.C. in para 20 of its judgment has observed that, as regards to the source of income to the husband, his own case and evidence is speaking against him. From his case as well as oral evidence on record the opponent-husband is doing the labour work. It means he is having some source of income. The learned J.M.F.C. has further recorded in para 29 that the husband has no any other responsibility to carry because of the availability of the source of income to his parents. The J.M.F.C. has considered the source of income to the respondent-husband from the agricultural land of the family of the respondent-husband. Viewed from any angle I am of the considered view that the direction of the J.M.F.C. directing the respondent-husband to pay Rs.800/- per month to the wife was based upon sound reasoning that, there is a sufficient income by doing labour work and from agriculture field of the family of the respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rs.800/- per month to the petitioner-wife. Therefore, the cryptic reasoning given by the revisional Court to upset the findings recorded by the J.M.F.C. about the source of income of the respondent-husband and further modification of order by the revisional court reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the cryptic reasoning given by the revisional Court to upset the findings recorded by the J.M.F.C. about the source of income of the respondent-husband and further modification of order by the revisional court reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner is unsustainable in law. The judgment and order passed by the revisional Court dated 23rd February 2006 in Criminal Revision Application No.130/2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs.800/- per month to the petitioner-wife as directed by the J.M.F.C. Shevgaon by his order dated 9th May 2005 in Criminal Misc. Application no.79/2003. Judgment and order passed by J.M.F.C. Shevgaon dated 9.5.2005 in Criminal Misc. Application No.79/2003 is confirmed and consequently the respondent-husband is bound to pay arrears of maintenance as per order dated 9.5.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C. Shevgaon. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) and Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.