IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1784 of 2010 SHEO KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF LATE JAGDISH GUPTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAJIPUR P.S. PARSAGADH P.S. EKMA, DISTT. SARAN AT CHAPRA …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SABITA DEVI WIFE OF SHEOKUMAR GUPTA D/O PARSURAM SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARMPURA P.O. DHARMPURA P.S. DAUDPUR, DISTT. SARAN AT CHAPRA …OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 03. 19.01.2011 With the consent of the parties, the application has been taken up for final disposal. It appears that the application is barred by limitation for which limitation petition has been filed. For the reasons disclosed in the petition and submissions made in support thereof, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Present application has been filed questioning the sustainability of the order dated 26.04.2010, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Maintenance Case No.52 of 2007 (Sabita Devi vs. State of Bihar). By the said order, learned Principal Judge upon hearing both sides, directed for payment of a sum of Rs.1000/- only as ad-interim maintenance to the applicant (wife) from the date of the order. It thus appears that by the order impugned only ad-interim maintenance has been fixed. Both parties were heard before passing the aforesaid order. The petitioner has not been able to show any patent 2 infirmity in the order meriting interference. Since the whole issue is before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, the petitioner shall have liberty to raise all the relevant issues which shall be considered while disposing of the matter finally. Fixation of ad-interim maintenance by the impugned order shall not prejudice the parties in any manner at the time of final disposal of the case With this observation/direction, the application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )