1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.R. A. No. 505 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande,J DATE : 11th August, 2006 None present on behalf of the parties. 2. This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 31.1.2002 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1639/2000 granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- p. m. to the non- applicant who is the wife of the applicant. This revision application was adjourned at the request of the applicant on 22.6.2006. On 4.8.2006 none appeared on behalf of the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 9.8.2006. On that day, Advocate Shri Chandekar partly argued on behalf of the applicant and sought adjournment. When the matter was called out today neither the applicant nor his advocate is present. Hence, I propose to dispose of the application on merits. 3. The applicant in the above suit, filed an application for interim maintenance against the non- applicant. According to the applicant, the non-applicant 2 is the stenographer in the Court of Nagpur District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and was getting gross salary of Rs. 11,128/- p.m.. The applicant produced pay slip of the non-applicant which discloses that the non-applicant was getting net salary of Rs. 9121/- p. m.. Considering the monthly salary of the non-applicant, the trial court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- p. m. in favour of the applicant. The grant of maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- p. m. to the applicant, considering the net salary of the non- applicant, cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any ground to interfere against the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 18.4.2002 granted by the court stands vacated. The revision application is disposed of. Judge patle