JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2] Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3] The petitioner-wife challenges the order dated 13th May 2016 made by the Family Court at Bandra rejecting her application for interim maintenance.

4] Mr. Pai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had not suppressed any facts in her application dated 5th January, 2011 seeking interim maintenance, much less can it be said that she has suppressed any material facts. He points out that the petitioner had neither acquired any interest nor transfered such interest in flat No. 602 at Khar (Khar flat) as on 5th January, 2011. In any case, Mr. Pai submits that the petitioner’s name was added to the agreement for sale along with that of her father and brother and ultimately the petitioner, gifted her so called interest in the Khar flat to her brother Vishal Thawani. He submits that all these facts were completely extraneous to the issue of maintenance and therefore the learned Family Court erred in denying the petitioner maint