1 (27) Revn 452/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 452 OF 2010 Anil Kashinath Ghorpade .. Petitioner Vs. Pooja Anil Ghorpade & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Shamak Mehta for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 13th December, 2010 P.C. 1. The husband has filed this application challenging the order dated 19th June, 2010 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Mumbai granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- p.m. to the Petitioner and Rs.2000/- p.m. each to two children making a total of Rs.7000/- p.m. The learned Judge has inter alia considered that the Petitioner did not challenge the wife’s contention in her Petition as he did not file his written statement and did not cross-examine the wife. The learned Judge naturally believed her statements which were left uncontroverted. The learned Judge also considered that when the matter was fixed for Judgment an application for adjournment was moved ostensibly to settle the dispute by taking back the wife and children. However on that date the Petitioner husband did not appear and that application was rejected. 2. It is argued on behalf of the husband that he was not residing in Mumbai, that he appointed his father as his constituted attorney and that he has engaged his Advocate. He claims that he was represented through his 2 (27) Revn 452/10 C.A. and his Advocate. 3. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner husband drew my attention to a reply of the husband to the Petitioner’s application for amendment of the Petition. The reply is dated 28.04.2009. The amendment was to bring the second child on record. The husband admittedly has second child. He contested that application and filed reply. Counsel on his behalf showed me the notings of the Court including the noting dated 28.04.2009. He contends that this shows that the additional written statement is filed which would show that the written statement was filed and which would show that allegations of the wife were controverted. The contention is wholly incorrect. The reply dated 28.04.2009 is not an additional written statement. It is filed in interim application. Its very title shows that it is reply to the application for amendment. It, therefore, does not show the defence of the husband on merits. It cannot show the wife’s statement being controverted with regard to the amount of maintenance claimed and adjudicated upon. Even the noting dated 28.04.2009 does not show any written statement or additional written statement being filed. 4. The challenge to the order is absolutely misconceived. Writ Petition is dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)