JUDGMENT Admit. 2. Considering the nature of order assailed, calling of record and proceedings is dispensed with. 3. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 4. By the present application in revision, the applicant-father assails order of maintenance passed by the Family Court in favour of the children-respondents respectively of age about 15 year and 4 year. The wife of the applicant applied to the Family Court for maintenance for the opponents under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She applied for maintenance separately for herself under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application made by the wife was rejected while the application made for opponents was allowed and the applicant was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4250/- to each of the applicant. 5. It is not in dispute that the applicant is serving in Zilla Parishad, Amravati as a Kendra Pramukh and is earning gross salary of Rs.33,000/- per month as detailed out in the salary slip produced at Annexure-V in this application. The wife of the applicant deposed before the Family Court in support of the claim of the maintenance staked by the opponents children. The applicant did not enter in the witness box nor led any other evidence on his behalf in said proceeding. The trial court, after assessment of the evidence, for the reasons recorded, passed the order of maintenance in favour of the opponents, as narrated earlier. 6. Mr. Sudame, learned counsel for the applicant, attempted to assail the order of maintenance on two count. Insofar as the first count is concerned, it is his submission that it is well settled that normally 1/3rd of net salary should not be granted as maintenance. It is his submission that the net salary of applicant being only to the tune of Rs.17,000/after the deduction of maintenance granted to the tune of Rs.8500/- much more than 1/3rd of the net salary received by the applicant, hardly anything would be left for maintaining himself and his parents. It is canvassed thus such grant is improper and illegal. 7. After perusal of the salary slip and as the same by itself not showing any compulsory deduction, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the opponents, it is difficult to find any substance in the above-stated submission canvassed. It is canvassed thus such grant is improper and illegal. 7. After perusal of the salary slip and as the same by itself not showing any compulsory deduction, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the opponents, it is difficult to find any substance in the above-stated submission canvassed. The perusal of order reveals trial court after carefully considering the said aspect and amongst other observed that said deductions pointed were by way of savings for the applicant and as such the amount deducted from it could not be excluded while computing income of applicant for grant of maintenance. Having regard to the same, it is difficult to find fault with said reasoning or any substance in the relevant submission canvassed on behalf of applicant. 8. Mr. Sudame further contended that the trial court failed to take into consideration that two more persons i.e. parents of applicant were dependent upon him. It is submitted that, after considering said dependency, amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is apparently excessive as after paying such an amount, hardly any appreciable amount would be left with the applicant to maintain himself and his parents. 9. The said submissions were rightly refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents by pointing out that legally the parents of the applicant cannot be said to be dependent upon him. It is urged that the father of the applicant is a retired Police Officer and as such drawing the pension and hence himself or his wife i.e. the mother of the applicant cannot be said to be dependent upon him for the purpose of maintenance. The said submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be said to be devoid of merit. Apart from it, the perusal of order passed by the Family Court does not reveal that the contentions, as canvassed before this court, were taken before the Family Court. 10. The perusal of order passed by the Family Court reveals that the same is passed on the basis of evidence surfaced on the record. Apparently, there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness reflected from the said order warranting an interference by this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction. 11. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Application sans merit deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. Application dismissed.