MUKUND Vs. SHANTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Shau learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shukla learned counsel for the non-applicant.

(2.) Order sought to be reviewed and passed on 17.11.1986 in C.R.A. No. 1025 of 1986 is as follows:

(3.) As pointed out above I have heard on this revision application both the parties. Having heard the review application and also the controversy I find that, by interim order the wife has received Rs. 8000.00 as maintenance which the husband now wants back since the wife has some amount deposited in the bank from which she gets some interest. Now the position is that since the wife has been allowed to retain Rs. 8000.00 which she has received as pendente lite and in view of the fact that she has not received any further amount as the maintenance pendente-lite and further in view of the fact that the main petition for maintenance is yet to be decided. I find that the wife need not refund the amount of Rs. 8000.00 immediately. To that extent, therefore, this review petition has no force. The review application is, therefore, hereby rejected. The divorce petition be expedited. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.