Jagadeesan, J. - (1.)The petitioner husband has filed this Revision against the order, granting interim alimony to the respondent -wife. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P. No. 33 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Tuticorin, seeking a decree for divorce. Pending the said O.P. the respondent wife filed an application I.A. No. 82 of 1990 claiming interim maintenance. The trial Court ordered the application and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 500/ -per month by order dated 21.11.1990. There after, the respondent filed I.A. No. 133 of 1990 for enhancement of the interim maintenance to Rs. 1,000/ -. On 16.11.1990 H.M.O.P. No. 33 of 1990 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default and I.A. No. 133 of 1990 filed by the respondent for enhancement of maintenance was also dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent filed I.A. No. 94 of 1992 for restoration of I.A. No. 133 of 1990 and the same was ordered on 6.1.1993 and thereafter on 24.2.1993 the trial Court passed an order in I.A. No. 133 of 1990 enhancing the interim maintenance for the respondent to Rs. 1,000/ -. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 73 of 1993 on the file of the District Judge, Tuticorin. The District Judge dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision has been filed. The counsel for the respondent was absent, even though the matter had been listed on four occasions. Hence. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that when H.M.O.P. No. 33 of 1990 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, subsequently, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the claim of the maintenance in I.A. No. 133 of 1990. Whatever the Interlocutory Application is filed that would be relating to the relief pending the main proceedings. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Court below. I find some force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. When the respondent has filed applications claiming interim maintenance and the litigation expenses that would be only till the disposal of the main H.M.O.P. filed by the petitioner and when the O.P. was dismissed on 16.11.1990 the application filed by the respondent was also dismissed. The respondent cannot seek for restoration of I.A. No. 133 of 1990 when the main O.P. has been dismissed. The trial Court has restored I.A. No. 133 of 1990 and ordered the enhancement of maintenance after the dismissal of the main H.M.O.P. and hence, the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. C.M.P. Nos. 8565 of 1994 and 309 of 1996 are dismissed.