1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2008 Mushtaque Ahmad Shaikh .....Applicant V/s. Surayya Fatima Mushtaque Shaikh & Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande, for the applicant. Smt.S.D.Shinde, Public Prosecutor, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed that delay in filing revision application may be condoned. By the impugned judgment dated 17-08-2007, the Family Court has awarded maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor daughter from the date of the order. This revision application is filed at the very belated stage. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant- husband is not residing in India and therefore, the present application is filed through power of attorney. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court 2 may also considered the order of the Trial court as to find out whether the applicant has any case on merits or not. 2. Considering the order of the family court, in our view, the family court has taken a just view in awarding maintenance to the respondent and her minor daughter. The learned counsel for the applicant is also not in a position to point out as to how the impugned judgment of the family court is bad in law. Since on merits we do not find any substance as well as considering the fact that the reasons given in the civil application are also not satisfactory for condoning the delay and actual total number of days are also not mentioned in the civil application, it would not be proper to ask the respondent to spent for the litigation in deciding the delay condonation application. In our view, even if delay is condoned, ultimately on merits, the impugned order is not required to be interfered with. We have also heard the learned counsel for the applicant on merits, as he has fairly argued the matter on merits. Considering the aforesaid aspects, we do not find any substance in the civil application. Accordingly, criminal application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the Criminal application No.98 of 2008, Criminal Revision Application No.88 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)