/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.14 OF 2008 IN PETITION NO.C-160 OF 2005 Shri Anil Vishram Poyekar ...Appellant/ Applicant V/s. Smt. Pranoti Anil Poyekar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.E.K. Sasidharan for Appellant. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 14th FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.:- 1. By this civil application, original appellant seeks stay of execution of decree which is challenged in the appeal. Decree passed by the Family Court in the Petition is that appellant/applicant is directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to his wife and two children and he has been directed not to drive them out of the house which they are presently occupying. It appears that the appellant is not disputing relationship. From / 2/ the judgment of the Trial Court, it is clear that the appellant did not even cross examine Petitioner-wife. He also did not lead any evidence. Court, therefore, accepted case of the Petitioner and made order. In our opinion, considering the present economical situation, Rs.1500/- per month cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be excessive maintenance for three persons who are living in Thane. In our opinion, therefore, there is no reason to stay the execution of decree for payment of maintenance. Similar case is with the order of permanent injunction made by the Court in relation to the house. The appellant is admitting that original petitioner No.1 is his wife and original petitioner No.2 and 3 are his children. He will have to provide them shelter. There is no case made out for grant of stay of execution of decree challenged in the appeal. . Civil application is rejected. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)