JUDGMENT: BHANGALE A.P., J. 1. By this application, revision applicant questioned legality, pro­priety and correctness of the impugned judg­ment and order in Petition No. E-405 of 1996 and Petition No. E-2511 /1996 delivered by learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur on 1/10/2005 whereby present petitioner was made liable to pay maintenance @ Rs. 700/ per month to respondent No. 2 Ku Payal through respondent No. 1 Smt. Maya. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appli­cant that he is not liable to pay maintenance to Ku Payal whose paternity was denied by him on the ground that he had no access to her mother at the relevant period as she was living at her parent’s house. Revision appli­cant, therefore, prayed for setting aside or­der of maintenance granted for girl Ku Payal, his alleged daughter. It is submitted on be­half of the revision applicant that he had married with Maya d/o Bhaiyyalal Borkar on 19/4/1980, but Maya used to reside at her father's house at Nagpur and claimed separate maintenance for herself and daugh­ter Minal by filing Misc. Cri. Application No. 37 of 1981. Prayer for grant of maintenance by respondent Maya was rejected. However, it was allowed in respect of daughter Minal and according to applicant, he is still paying maintenance allowance to daughter Minal. Respondent Maya then filed petition No. E-2511 of 1996 before the Family Court claim­ing maintenance for herself and Petition No. E-405 of 1996 claiming maintenance for daughter Payal. The Family Court has di­rected present applicant to pay mainte­nance @ Rs. 700/per month to petitioner Ku Payal and Rs. 1000/per month to re­spondent Maya. 3. According to learned Counsel for revi­sion applicant, in Second Appeal No. 280 of 1994, decided by this Court on 4/5/2010, marriage between revision applicant re­spondent No. 1 Maya came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . Thus, re­spondent Maya is no more the wife of ap­plicant with effect from 4/5/2010 . At the same time, learned Counsel for the appli­cant does not dispute that till her remar­riage, divorced wife Maya would be enti­tled to claim maintenance, but according to learned Counsel, respondent No. 2 Payal, alleged daughter of applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance. 4. None appears for respondents to op­pose the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for applicants. Perused record and proceedings. 5. 4. None appears for respondents to op­pose the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for applicants. Perused record and proceedings. 5. It appears that in the impugned judg­ment and order, considering the rival plead­ings, learned Judge of the Family Court framed the point, viz. "Does the guardian mother prove that the minor is born to her from the respondent ?" and this point is an­swered in the affirmative. Relevant discus­sion on this point finds in paragraph 27 of the judgment which reads as under: "27 . It is not disputed that after marriage they cohabited together and gave birth to daugh­ter Payal. It is also not disputed that there was separation between them and she filed proceeding for maintenance against him for herself and for minor child Payal and main­tenance was granted to the minor child at the rate of Rs. 75/p.m. in the year 1981 and it was rejected to guardian mother in Misc.Cri. Application No. 37/81 and Session Court also confirmed the order of J.M.F.C. for mainte­nance of guardian mother. Guardian mother has also filed a proceeding for enhancement for minor Minal and it was enhanced and granted @ Rs. 200/ p.m. in Misc. Cri. Appli­cation No. 59/ 91. It is also not disputed that he filed the divorce petition against her bear­ing No. 231/84 and on 21/1/91 that petition was dismissed. He preferred appeal. His ap­peal was also dismissed on 15/6/94 . He has challenged the order before the Hon"ble High Court. It is pending..." 6. Learned Judge of the Family Court mentioning that present applicant had de­nied paternity of the child, proceeded to dis­cuss the evidence and circumstances and an­swered point No. 1 in the affirmative. The observations of the learned Judge were in connection with proceedings of mainte­nance under section 125 Cri.P.C. Although second appeal preferred by the present ap­plicant was decided on 4th May 2010 while divorce was granted on the ground of cru­elty by wife. The dispute as to paternity of Ku Payal was not decided in the second appeal nor it is the contention of the appli­cant that he has filed any proceedings in a Competent Court of law to question pater­nity of Ku Payal so as to avoid his liability to maintain her. Considering the observa­tions made in paragraph 44 of the im­pugned judgment and order, I am not in­clined to disturb the quantum of mainte­nance granted by the Family Court. Considering the observa­tions made in paragraph 44 of the im­pugned judgment and order, I am not in­clined to disturb the quantum of mainte­nance granted by the Family Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant submit­ted that there is change in the circum­stances as the applicant has retired from service and, therefore, he would not be able to pay maintenance which is on higher side. If that is so, applicant is at liberty to bring the change in circumstances to the notice of learned Judge of the Family Court concerned and pray for alteration in the quantum of maintenance allowance. Needless to say, applicant shall be at liberty to challenge pa­ternity of Ku Payal, if so advised, by filing appropriate proceedings in the Competent Court. With these observations, application dismissed. Application dismissed.