JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Present writ petition is filed against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor, on 21.10.2000, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 76 of 1999 and the judgment and order, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli on 29.1.2001 in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2000. By the judgment and order, dated 29.1.2001, the Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the present petitioner and thereby reduced the monthly payment of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to each of the respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as ordered by the learned Magistrate, to Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- per month respectively. 2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:- "Respondent No. 1 is wife of the petitioner; whereas respondent No. 2 is his son. Marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 30.4.1985. On 6.7.1988, respondent No. 2 was born." 3. Respondents were constrained to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Degloor. The said application was filed on 17.8.1999. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 76 of 1999. It was asserted by respondent No. 1 in the said application that for first two years she received good treatment at the hands of the petitioner, however, in the month of September, 1987 on the instigation of petitioner, her mother-in-law assaulted on her with burning stick due to which she suffered injuries. However, respondent No. 1 with a view to run marital life smoothly did not report the matter to anybody. At the time of birth of respondent No. 2, petitioner/husband started demanding Rs. 50,000/- from respondent No. 1 for his business and on said count illtreatment was meted out to respondent No. 1 at the hands of the petitioner, both mental as well as physical, however, keeping in view the future of son respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 sustained the said illtreatment. On 10.8.1999, the petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- from respondent No. 1 and her brother when they returned to the matrimonial house of respondent No. 1. That time, respondent No. 1 noticed that in her matrimonial house there is one unknown girl. On 10.8.1999, the petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- from respondent No. 1 and her brother when they returned to the matrimonial house of respondent No. 1. That time, respondent No. 1 noticed that in her matrimonial house there is one unknown girl. Upon inquiry, her identity was established as one Gangamani and it was revealed to respondent No. 1 that on 23.6.1999 the petitioner got married with said Gangamani. Since, respondent No. 1 was also assaulted for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, respondent No. 1 reported the matter with police station, Degloor. On the basis of said information, crime bearing No. 120 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Respondent No. 1 also lodged a complaint in the competent court for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further pointed out in the said application that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are required to take shelter in respondent No. 1's parental house. It was pointed out that the petitioner is having business of supplying building material and his monthly income is between Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10000/-. With these assertions in the application, an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month each by way of maintenance was prayed for by the respondents. 4. On being summoned, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. According to the written statement, he is not doing the business of supplying building material, but he works as daily wager and his income is in the range of Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month. It was the case of the petitioner in the written statement that. respondent No. 1 was from very well to do family. The father of respondent No. 1 is a traffic inspector in M.S.R.T.C. and respondent No. 1 on her own deserted the petitioner. It was pointed out in the written statement that, respondent No. 1 is working as Bidi Mazdoor at Degloor and she earns Rs. 50/- per day. 5. With the above pleadings, the parties to the application went for trial. 6. Respondent No. 1 entered into witness box. The petitioner also entered into witness box and examined one Ramlu in order to prove that respondent No. 1 is working as a Bidi Mazdoor. 7. 50/- per day. 5. With the above pleadings, the parties to the application went for trial. 6. Respondent No. 1 entered into witness box. The petitioner also entered into witness box and examined one Ramlu in order to prove that respondent No. 1 is working as a Bidi Mazdoor. 7. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties to the application, found that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain his wife and son. The learned Magistrate also recorded a finding on the basis of available evidence that the petitioner is having sufficient means and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are unable to maintain themselves. With these specific findings in favour of respondent Nos. I and 2, learned Magistrate found that since the petitioner is building material supplier and is also having a pan shop, his income is Rs. 5,000/- per month. The learned Magistrate found that respondent No. 2 is a student, and therefore, the learned Magistrate vide order, dated 21.10.2000 directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as monthly maintenance to each of the respondents from the date of application. 8. The petitioner/husband, aggrieved by the said order of grant of maintenance in favour of respondents, filed Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2000. The learned Revisional Court has concurred with the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate, however, on a strange reasoning that the business does not remain smooth forever and that respondent No. 1 has not called for the account books, and therefore, he reduced the quantum of monthly maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- per month to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 9. Present petition is filed by the petitioner against the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge though maintenance amount is reduced. It appears that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, dated 29.1.2001 is not further challenged by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, nor their counsel was present when the petition was taken up for its final hearing on 9.7.2014. 10. I have heard Shri M.V. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the learned Revisional Court has committed error in granting maintenance of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- to the respondents. He submitted that there is no evidence to point out that present petitioner has neglected to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 10. I have heard Shri M.V. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the learned Revisional Court has committed error in granting maintenance of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- to the respondents. He submitted that there is no evidence to point out that present petitioner has neglected to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submitted that it is the respondent No. 1 who has parted company of the petitioner and since she is earning Rs. 50/- per day, she is disentitled for maintenance. 11. Though it is the submission on behalf of the petitioner that it is the respondent No. 1 who has parted company of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any circumstance and/or any piece of evidence to substantiate the said claim. If really respondent No. 1 has deserted the petitioner on her own and the petitioner was ready to join the company of respondent No. 1, it was open for the petitioner to file the proceedings before the competent court for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that no such proceedings were filed. This fact shows that the claim of the petitioner that he was ready to cohabit with respondent No. 1 is nothing but an attempt to defeat the legal claim of wife to get herself maintained at the hands of her husband. 12. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below to the effect that it is the petitioner who is responsible for neglecting his wife and son. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out before this court from the evidence available on record that the findings so recorded by the courts below are perverse or those are not in conformity with the available material and evidence on record. Therefore, the argument on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect is rejected. 13. A further submission was made before this court that the necessary license issued in favour of the petitioner under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is not renewed from 1992. Therefore, the court has to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner is not running business. There is no positive evidence brought on record by petitioner that he is not running his said business. Therefore, the court has to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner is not running business. There is no positive evidence brought on record by petitioner that he is not running his said business. Merely because license is not renewed that does not mean that there is no business activity. The burden was on petitioner which he has failed to discharge. 14. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is established on record that respondent No. 1 is working as Bidi Mazdoor and earns Rs. 50/- per day. To deny the legal right of the wife of her maintenance from her husband on such plea is nothing but rubbing salt on the wound. The petitioner is not taking care of his son. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is incurring any expenses required for his son for his educational purpose. Respondent No. 1 is at the mercy of her parents. She is required to take shelter there along with her son. Therefore, if for sustenance she is having some meagre amount of Rs. 50/- that by itself does not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband. The wife is entitled to lead her life commensurate with the life of her husband. It is established on record that the petitioner is running business of supplying the building material. Therefore, merely because respondent No. 1 is earning Rs. 50/- cannot be the ground to throw her case out of court. Further, the son, who is taking education is also entitled to be maintained at the hands of his father/petitioner. Hence. 1 see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.