1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Review Petition Stamp No.27113 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.390 of 2008 Mr.Rajendra Shivram Poyrekar Petitioner Vs. Sulochana Rajendra Pyrekar Respondent Mr.R.V.Govilkar for petitioner. Mr.K.J.Somane for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. February 10, 2009. P.C. . Heard Mr.Govilkar, the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Writ Petition No.390 of 2008 came to be dismissed on 6/6/2008. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to review / recall the said order. By the said order the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The order also indicates that the husband was directed to pay maintenance from May 2006 onwards as per the impugned order passed by the Family Court and the maintenance amount was fixed at Rs.6000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5000/- per month for each of the two children thus making a total maintenance amount of Rs.16,000/- per month. In obedience of the order passed on 22/1/2008, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with 2 the Family Court and it appears that another amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the wife directly subsequent to the order dated 6/6/2008, thus making a total of Rs.75,000/-. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 31/10/2007 for the recovery of the maintenance amount. As on 6/6/2008 the husband was in arrears for payment of maintenance amount to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- and, therefore, while dismissing the petition for non prosecution, a condition was imposed for entertaining the application for restoration, if so filed, and the said condition was to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Family Court and attach a copy of the deposit receipt with the restoration application. Civil Application No.2413 of 2008 was filed for restoration, but without depositing the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the applicant had prayed to set aside the order dated 6/6/2008 and to restore the petition. It is thereafter that the review petition has been filed. . Having regards to the amount of arrears that was due to be paid by the applicant and even if the amount of maintenance payable to the daughters would be taken into consideration, as on 6/6/2008, the 3 husband was in arrears of about Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, in the order under review, condition of deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- was set out for entertaining the application for restoration. . In the facts of this case, I am satisfied that there is no case made out to recall or review the order dated 6/6/2008 and hence review petition is rejected. (B.H