WP(C) 6656/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. D. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. M. Buzarba ruah, learned counsel for the respondent. Aggrieved by the order, dated 07.08.2010, passed, on an application made by the opposite party herein, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which gave rise to Misc. Case(J) No.133/2009, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Fam ily Court, Guwahati, has allowed maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.12,000/- per mon th, in favour of the opposite party No.1, with effect from 31.07.2009, which was the date of filing of the application by the opposite party herein seeking main tenance pendente lite, the petitioner filed a revision petition, namely, CRP No. 341 of 2010. The revision, however, was dismissed, on 8.9.2010, on merit by ord er, dated 8.9.2010. After dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has, now, ma de an application, under Section 151 of the C.P.C. in the learned Court below, s eeking review of the order, dated 7.8.2010, which had been earlier considered an d maintained in the revision. The petitioner’s grievance is that on his applicat ion, which has been made under Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure-5 to the writ petiti on), no order has yet been passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, and the same has, thus, been left pending. Resisting the writ petition, it has been contended, on behalf of the respondent, that the review petition is not maintainable, because the revision against orde r, dated 7.8.2010, has already been dismissed. In this regard, however, it has b een pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that since it has been observed in t he order, dated 8.9.2010, passed in the revision petition, Though the present p etitioner denied that he had the capacity to pay Rs.60,470/- as maintenance pend ente lite, the fact remains that the present petitioner admitted that he had bee n working in Saudi Arabia and strangely enough, he gave no authentic particulars of his earning so as to indicate as to what his income was. On the other hand, he alleged that the petitioner No.1 had her source of income. What was the sourc e of income of petitioner No.1 was, however, not disclosed by the present petiti oner, who was, as already indicated above, opposite party in the said applicatio n seeking maintenance pendente lite, the petitioner, with the help of the revie w application, seeks to place on record as to what his source of income is. It may also be noted that it has been submitted, on behalf of the respondent, th at in the past, the petitioner filed an application seeking bail in connection w ith a case which was lodged against him by the respondent and which gave rise to Bail Application No.1095/2010, wherein the petitioner mentioned the name of a c ompany different from the one, which he has, now, mentioned, as his employer, by his document listed at Annexure-2 series, though in this writ petition as well as in the said bail application, the petitioner’s contention was that he was wor king with the company, which he had mentioned in the bail application, since Oct ober, 2009. Considering the fact that an application has been filed under Section 151, C.P.C . in the learned Court below, it is the duty of the learned Court below to consi der not only the maintainability but also the merit of the said application and pass appropriate orders disposing of the application in accordance with law. Thi s apart, in order to enable the respondent to contest the said application, shou ld the respondent so wishes, the learned Court below shall remain at liberty to direct payment of such expenses by the petitioner as may be deemed necessary. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of. Send a copy of this order to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati.