1 CRI-REV-316-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2011 Akhlaque Ahmed Shaikh ..Applicant Vs Smt.Shireen Akhlaque Shaikh & anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.Raj J. Khude, for applicant. Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for respondent no.2 - State. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 30 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.Raj J.Khude, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, learned APP for respondent no.2 State. 2] By this petition, the applicant – husband challenges the order dated 25 th August, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No.E-378 of 2009. By that order, the learned Judge has directed the applicant herein to pay 2 CRI-REV-316-11.sxw maintenance to the first respondent wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.1,000/- per month for child from the date of filing of the application i.e.9 th September, 2009 till disposal of the main petition. 3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not presently employed. Earlier, he was working as labourer in Baharin on temporary basis and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. However, he was falsely implicated in a case filed by the first respondent under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. He was arrested. His passport was confiscated after his arrest and consequently, he lost his job. Presently he is unemployed and therefore, he has no capacity to pay the maintenance. 4] The learned Principal Judge of the Family Court, by the impugned order, granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and her minor son. In paragraph 9 of the order, the learned Judge of the Family Court observed that looking to the circumstances, status of the parties, present conditions and directed the present applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and child. 3 CRI-REV-316-11.sxw 5] I do not find that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed any error. It cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any perversity. The applicant has not established that the first respondent is employed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the maintenance granted by the Family Court is unreasonable. Taking overall view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]