IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.997 of 2010 BASUDEO THAKUR, SON OF BANKE THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SHIVPURI, NARHI, P.O- NARHI, POLICE STATION- KISHANPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF CHHEDI THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ALAMNAGAR, P.S.- ALAMNAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. D. Mehta, APP ----------- 2 12.07.2010 Heard both sides. Order under challenge is dated 24.5.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case no. 412 of 2008. It appears that on an application filed by the wife (O.P. no. 2), a final order was passed in presence of the parties on 11.8.2008. Petitioner (husband), aggrieved by the aforesaid order granting maintenance and litigation cost in favour of wife (O.P. no. 2), preferred a civil revision application which was finally disposed of on 26.9.2008. The order impugned in the said civil revision was not interfered with. Petitioner defaulted in making payment that resulted in issuance of distress warrant and consequently his lodgement in custody. By the impugned order, the consideration of bail made on his behalf has been postponed and he has been directed to deposit the whole amount of arrear of maintenance in favour of O.P. no. 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaring the marriage as null and void in 2 which the wife (O.P. no. 2) has already appeared. This court on a consideration of the submission and after perusing the materials on record is of the view that considering the narrow confines of the jurisdiction, interference in the present matter is not called for. The order seems to be interlocutory in nature. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that the learned Family Court, Saharsa has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall approach the court below for payment of arrear in instalment. Petitioner may file such a representation, if so advised. No direction/observation is required in this regard. If such an application is filed, the court below has to consider the same and dispose of in accordance with law. This court thus declines to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )