Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Sessions Judge dated 28.04.2006 in Criminal Revision Application No.5/2006 by which the maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was enhanced.

2. Shri Shaikh, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has strenuously criticized the impugned order. He submits that primarily the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court is limited and unless the impugned order appears to be perverse, erroneous and likely to cause grave injustice, the same cannot be interfered with only because a second view is possible.

3. He submits that the Respondents had moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the Petitioner. The oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the Respondents though the Petitioner did not step into the witness box. By the judgment dated 23.12.2005, the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs. 200/- per month to Respondent No.2 from the date of the application. The Respondents preferred Criminal Re