IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3738 of 2001 Date of decision: 5th February, 2010 Kewal Krishan Bhardwaj … Petitioner Versus Sangita Bhardwaj and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Samir Rathore, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Sangita Bhardwaj and her minor daughter Baby Dhavani had filed a petition under Section 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for payment of maintenance against Kewal Krishan Bhardwaj petitioner. The trial Court directed the petitioner respondent to pay Rs.3000/- per month to Sangita Bhardwaj and Rs.2000/- per month to Baby Dhavani. This order has been assailed in the present revision petition. On 23rd July, 2001, this Court had passed the following order: “Vide impugned order, a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month has been allowed to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as interim maintenance. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the salary of the petitioner is not more than Rs.8,000/- per month and so the interim maintenance granted to respondents is excessive. Notice of motion for 17.9.2001. Civil Revision No.3738 of 2001 Meanwhile, payment of interim maintenance beyond Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 shall remain stayed.” Thereafter, revision petition was admitted on 23rd March, 2004 and the following order was passed: “Admitted. In the meantime payment of interim maintenance beyond Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 shall remain stayed. However, it is directed that dependency of the present revision petition shall not preclude the learned trial Court from proceeding with the main petition, which shall be disposed of as expeditiously, as possible.” Five years are going to elapse. By now, the main case may have been decided. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to acquaint this Court regarding status of the suit. In these circumstances, till the main suit is decided without prejudice to rights of the respondents, interim order dated 23rd March, 2004 shall continue. Respondents will be at liberty to approach this Court for variation of the order or for redressal of any other grievance. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 5, 2010 rps 2