1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.757 OF 2009 In M.J. PETITION NO.E-260 OF 2005 Mr.Mohammed Nazirali Kadri Muslim : Applicant (Orig.Respondent) V/s. Mrs.Zahira Begum Muslim W/o. Mohammed Nazirali Kadri & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the applicant. Ms N.A. Asadi for respondent no.1. Mr.S.R.Shinde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is ex parte and, therefore, not sustainable in law. He further submits that the economic condition of the applicant is of such a nature which would not permit payment of the maintenance awarded by the impugned order. 2 3. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the application. 4. From the record, it is clear that though the applicant had filed his Written Statement, for reasons best known to him, he has chosen not to lead any evidence. As such, the evidence which was led by the respondent-wife has gone uncontroverted. From the perusal of the order impugned, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the learned Family Court while awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for the respondent-wife and Rs.1,500/- towards the children is perverse or unreasonable. In any case, the order is only towards interim maintenance and not a final order. 5. No case is made out for interference. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. B. R. GAVAI, J.