WP(C) 645/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.M. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. By means of this writ petition the petitioner who is the husband of the respondent has challenged the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned Princ ipal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. F.C. (Civil) No. 263/200 9 by which the prayer of the petitioner to deposit the amount pertaining to main tenance pendete lite in installment with the initial deposit of Rs. 20,000/- (R upees twenty thousand) has been rejected. While doing so the learned Family Cour t has referred to the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by this Court in CRP No. 341/2 010. The said civil revision petition was filed against the order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the learned Family Court providing maintenance pendete lite to the wi fe of the petitioner, the respondent herein. The operative part of the order is quoted below : Considering all aspects of the matter, needs of the petitioner, well-being of th e child and capability of the opposite party, it is hereby directed that the opp osite party shall provide Rs. 12,000/- p.m. as maintenance pendete lite to the p etitioner w.e.f 31.7.2009 from the filing of the petition. Considering the distress and agony faced by the petitioner with a minor baby in her lap, the opposite party is directed to deposit the half of the arrea r maintenance amount within 15 days from today and remaining amount will be paid on next date i.e. on 14.9.10. By the aforesaid order dated 8.9.2010 the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed with the following observations : I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the mater ials on record including the impugned order. What clearly transpires is that the opposite party herein had been able to clearly show, in Misc.(J) Case No. 133/2 009, that she had no sufficient source of income and as far as the present petit ioner is concerned, he works in Saudi Arabia and has sufficient income and sends money regularly to his parents from Saudi Arabia. In such circumstances, the le arned Court below took the view that the present petitioner was bound to provide maintenance pendete lite to the opposite party herein and her minor child. It has also been the finding of the learned Court below that the present petitioner has been evading to pay maintenance to the opposite party herein for the last t wo years. Considering, therefore, the well being of the child, financial capacity of the present petitioner and the needs of the present petitioner’s wife, who ha d applied for divorce, the learned Court below has directed payment of maintenan ce pendete lite as directed hereinabove, with effect from 31-7-2009(i.e., with effect from the date of filing of the application seeking maintenance pendete li te with further direction to the petitioner to deposit half of the arrear mainte nance amount within 15 days from the date of making of the order and the remaini ng amount on or before 14-9-2010. After the aforesaid proceeding the petitioner approached the Family Court for a review of the order dated 7.8.2010 purportedly filed u/s 151 of the CPC. The re vision petition has been dismissed by order dated 20.1.2011, a copy of which has been produced by Mr. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The matter having attained finality with the passing of the order dated 7.8.2010 directing the petitioner to provide maintenance pendete lite in the man ner and method indicated in the order and the said order having been affirmed by this Court in its order dated 8.9.2010 passed in CRP No. 341/2010 the petitione r cannot evade from paying maintenance to the respondents by way of filing this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.