JUDGMENT: 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dondaicha, dated 2.2.2005, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 62 of 2003 and the judgment and order, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhule, dated 16.8.2005, in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 30 of 2005 and 59 of 2005. 2. The facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may be stated thus :Present respondent no.1 Jayabai filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance on her behalf as well as maintenance on behalf of her son Kapil, who was applicant no.2. The original applicants led their evidence, but the present petitioner submitted a purshis at Exh. 54 declining to step into the witness box and lead his evidence. The Trial Judge, by the afore said judgment, came to the conclusion that original applicant no.1, being a second wife, who was married during the subsistence of the first marriage of the present petitioner, was disentitled to claim maintenance. In respect of original applicant no.2 i.e. son of present respondent no.1, the trial Court, by the said judgment, directed that maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month be paid to original applicant no.1 from the date of filing of the application. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court at Dhule. The present respondent no.1 Jayabai also, being aggrieved by rejection of her claim for maintenance, filed Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court. Both Criminal Revision Applications i.e. Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 2005 and 59 of 2005 came to be decided by the Revisional Court by judgment, dated 16.8.2005. The Revisional Court dismissed both the Revisions confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dondaicha. 4. Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that respondent no.2 i.e. original applicant no.2 admittedly was an illegitimate child of the petitioner, and consequently, was not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further urged before me that the quantum of maintenance i.e. Rs.1,500/- per month is extremely onerous and quantum be reduced. 4. Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that respondent no.2 i.e. original applicant no.2 admittedly was an illegitimate child of the petitioner, and consequently, was not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further urged before me that the quantum of maintenance i.e. Rs.1,500/- per month is extremely onerous and quantum be reduced. Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged before me that the petitioner is also required to pay maintenance to his wife, namely his first wife, and consequently, the quantum of maintenance awarded to respondent no.2 be reduced. 5. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though the respondents have been served with the notice of Rule of this petition. 6. The two Courts below concurrently have held that the amount of maintenance of Rs.1,500/-, which is awarded to respondent no.2 is perfectly legal and justified. The Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others AIR 2005 SC 1809 ., has held that the expression children would also include illegitimate child. Respondent no.2, therefore, in law is entitled to claim maintenance. The present petitioner had not led any evidence, and therefore, the Courts below were guided by the income of the petitioner, as was stated by respondent no.1. The Courts below upon assessing the evidence of the present respondent no.1 have awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to respondent no.2 i.e. Kapil, son of the petitioner. 7. In the light of the concurrent findings arrived at by the two Courts below, I am not inclined to interfere in the present petition. The present petition, therefore, being sans merits is dismissed. Rule stands discharged, with no order as to costs.