JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.I. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State whereas learned advocate Mr. VM Mansuri for respondent No. 2 and 3. Perused the record. 2. The petitioner is husband and original respondent whereas respondent No. 2 is his wife and respondent No. 3 is their minor son and original applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 331 of 2011 wherein by judgment and order dated 25.03.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapadvanj while allowing the application partly awarded an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards maintenance of wife and Rs. 1000/- towards maintenance of minor son with cost of Rs. 1000/-. When the said judgment was challenged by the wife and minor before the Sessions Court of Kheda, by impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge of Kheda while allowing the appeal, partly enhanced the amount of maintenance and directed the petitioner husband to pay Rs. 8000/- towards maintenance of the wife in place of Rs. 2000/- awarded by the trial Court and to pay Rs. 4000/- to the minor son instead of Rs. 2000/- and thereby total Rs. 12000/- to be paid by the petitioner husband to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as their monthly maintenance. Since the petitioner is serving with Thermal Power Station at Gandhinagar, the Sessions Court has directed to deduct the amount of maintenance from his salary and to deposit it or to pay it directly to the wife and minor son. The sum and substance of the petitioner's submission is to the effect that he is earning only Rs. 11769/- and therefore, it is difficult for him to deposit Rs. 12000/- and practically employee could not deduct an amount of Rs. 12000/- as per the impugned order and thereby even if employee would face the contempt proceedings as observed in the impugned judgement. To substantiate his argument, learned advocate has relied upon the pay slips for the month of February 2014 to June 2014. The perusal of such pay slip shows that total earnings by way of salary of the petitioner with allowance is between 21000/- to 26000/- approximately, but he is getting net salary between Rs. 8000/- to 12000/- only. To substantiate his argument, learned advocate has relied upon the pay slips for the month of February 2014 to June 2014. The perusal of such pay slip shows that total earnings by way of salary of the petitioner with allowance is between 21000/- to 26000/- approximately, but he is getting net salary between Rs. 8000/- to 12000/- only. However, salary slip shows that it is mainly because the deduction for installment of loan received from the co-operative society, festival advances and food advances and CPF advances thereby out of total deduction of approximately 11000/-, the major deduction is only towards repayment of such advances which is more than Rs. 7500/- and therefore, actual deduction is only an amount of Rs. 3000/- and thereby practically the net earning income of the petitioner is round about Rs. 20000/-. Therefore, it is his choice to have benefit of different advances and then to repay its installment. In the present case, the total installments are 1/3rd of the total salary of the petitioner. Therefore, practically petitioner has taken maximum advances against his total salary and now he is claiming that his income is only Rs. 11000/-. 3. In view of such facts and circumstances, practically, there is no substance in the Revision Application though on face on record it seems that a person who is getting cash salary of less than Rs. 12000/- is directed to pay Rs. 12000/- as maintenance. However, from documentary evidence because the same document i.e. salary slip specifically confirmed that in fact petitioner is earning more than Rs. 23000/- per month but he has obtained huge amount as advances and therefore, he is repaying the said amount by installment of more than Rs. 7500/- per month. The petitioner has already enjoyed the amount received by him in advance for his personal benefit and therefore, now he cannot be allowed to say that he is not having sufficient income so as to pay the reasonable amount of maintenance as awarded by the competent Court. Considering his total earning capacity as well as earning which is reflected from his salary slip, I do not see any substance in the revision application. Considering his total earning capacity as well as earning which is reflected from his salary slip, I do not see any substance in the revision application. However, so far as direction regarding contempt of court for non deducting the amount of maintenance from the salary of the petitioner and paying it to the wife or depositing it into the Court by the employee of the petitioner, such direction needs to be modified but in that case it is for the petitioner to apply for rescheduling installments for his advances so as to enable him to pay the monthly maintenance to his wife and children. 4. It would be relevant to refer following decisions on all such issues which are raised in this revision petition; 1. Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2025 ; 2. Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse reported in AIR 2014 SC 869 ; 3. Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 ; 4. Saygo Bai vs. Cheeru Bajrangi reported in AIR 2011 SC 1557 ; 5. Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 ; 6. Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak reported in AIR 2008 SC 3006 ; 7. Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain vs. Veena Kaushal reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 . 5. In view of above facts and circumstance, Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed whereby though quantum of maintenance is confirmed as per impugned order, the only observations and direction regarding contempt of court are quashed and set aside. 6. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.