R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. By means of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10.11.2000 whereby revision filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the appellate Court as well as the validity of the order dated 28.4.2000 whereby the trial court granted interim maintenance to the contesting respondent.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner filed a divorce petition against respondent No. 3, which was registered as Case No. 1165 of 1998. In the said case, respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for awarding interim maintenance. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence. Ultimately, the application filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed by the trial court by judgment and order dated 28.4.2000 and an amount of Rs. 1500/ - per month was granted as interim maintenance. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed a revision before the revisional Court. The Revisional Court has also dismissed the revision, filed by the petitioner. Hence the present petition. I have perused the orders passed by the Court below. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said orders. Further, the order passed by the trial court was not a revisable order. On this ground the revision filed by the petitioner was also liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the order passed by the trial court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main case of the petitioner itself has been decided finally. Therefore, the impugned order has merged in the original order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.;