IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1174 of 2008 RAM BABU SAO Versus MALTI DEVI ----------- 2 11.9.2008 Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, this civil revision application is wholly misconceived inasmuch as this Court had already in the order dated 22.2.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 302 of 2006, given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court below and file an application for seeking alternation in the amount of maintenance fixed by it. As a matter of fact when the petitioner had filed such application on 9.5.2007 for alternation in the amount of maintenance vide Misc. Case no. 10 of 2007, the Court below in the impugned order dated 13.6.2008 had proposed to take up the said matter on the next date i.e. 11.7.2008. Thus there was no occasion for the petitioner to file this civil revision application against such order dated 13.6.2008. This Court, therefore must hold that this civil revision application against the impugned order is wholly 2 frivolous and was aimed only to delay the proceedings in the court below. The grievance of Learned Counsel that the application which has been filed by the petitioner for alternation in the amount of maintenance (Misc. Case no. 10 of 2007) has not been disposed as yet cannot be effectively looked into by this court in absence of ordersheet dated 11.7.2008 or thereafter. It however goes without saying that if the petitioner has filed an application for alteration for amount of maintenance the same must be disposed of expeditiously. It is however also clarified that the petitioner would be liable to pay the amount of maintenance so fixed by the court below in its earlier order @ Rs. 5000/- per month from 18.8.2005 till the same is modified in the pending application for alteration of such amount i.e. Misc. Case no. 10 of 2007. This court would accordingly direct the petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance, if not already paid, within one month from today. Normally this court would have awarded a heavy cost for filing such frivolous civil revision 3 against the impugned order which had not decided anything adverse to the interest of the petitioner but taking into consideration that the petitioner is a retired railway employee, it would refrain from imposing such cost. The petitioner however is warned to be careful in future. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)