IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4540 of 2003. Date of Decision: 18th December, 2008. Mukhtiar Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate Versus Vidhushi & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. C,B.Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.8.2003 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Rohtak whereby the respondents, who are two minor grand daughters of the petitioner, have been granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month. The aforementioned order has been passed in a suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction filed by the respondents that includes the mother of the minor children. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed by this Court while admitting the revision petition on 30.1.2006:- “Admitted. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, order passed by this Court on 17.7.2000 is modified. The order impugned in the revision petition dated 21.8.2003 shall remain stayed provided the petitioner continues to pay ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month to each of the plaintiffs, during the pendency of the revision petition and the arrears at the said rate are deposited or paid to the plaintiffs within a period of six weeks from today”. Learned counsel for the parties inform that the civil suit is still pending and is fixed for evidence. Having regard to the nature of relief sought in the main suit and the plight of the minor children, learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the civil suit needs to be decided expeditiously and at the earliest. They are in agreement that till the suit is decided, the interim arrangement made by this Court vide the above reproduced order dated 30.1.2006 can be allowed to continue. Consequently, and in view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, I do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of this revision petition which is disposed of with a direction to the learned Civil Court to take the suit out of turn and dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably before 30.6.2009. Till then, the petitioner shall continue to pay interim maintenance to both the minor children in terms of the order dated 30.1.2006, reproduced above. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner has not complied with the aforementioned order and/or is in arrears of maintenance and if he fails to clear the dues before 31.01.2009, in that event, the order dated 30.1.2006 shall be taken to have been vacated and the revision petition dismissed. In other words, in such a situation, the respondents shall be entitled to claim maintenance at the same rate as has been awarded by the learned Civil Court. Needless to say that the respondents shall not be precluded to seek enhanced interim maintenance, if so permissible in law. Disposed of. December 18, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE