- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that without considering the petitioner's submission and reply, the impugned order dated 1.2.2010 has been passed by the court below.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner already suffered an order of payment of maintenance to the respondent of Rs.2,500/- per month as that order has been passed in another proceedings and while passing the order dated 1.2.2010, the court below has not given adjustment of that amount of Rs.2,500/- in the maintenance awarded by the impugned order. From the impugned order, it is not appearing that the petitioner has took this plea before the court below that he already had an order against him to pay Rs.2,500/- as maintenance to the respondent and, therefore, there is no prayer of the petitioner to adjust the amount.;