Maintenance--Order of interim affirmed in revision and review--Writ petition against said order not maintainable.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure P-12), passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak.

2. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife having a minor daughter, namely, Ridhi out of their wedlock. The petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) on 23.11.2005. In the said petition, the wife moved an application for grant of maintenance pendente-lite, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak, on 10.4.2006, awarding a sum of No. 10,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance. A sum of Rs. 5,100/- was awarded as litigation expenses. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Civil Revision No. 2626 of 2006. Earlier, the order dated 10.4.2006 was stayed with the rider that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance. However, the said Revision Petition was finally dismissed on 17.3.2007 and the order passed by the learned trial Court was maintained. The petitioner filed a review petition before this Court, which was also dismissed on 9.7.2007.

3. It is, thereafter, the petitioner filed another review application for the review of the order dated 10.4.2006, which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge on 13.8.2008 (Annexure P.12). It is the said order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner has filed an application on 31.5.2007 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. The petitioner has also filed another petition seeking decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act on 18.3.2008. On the other hand, the minor daughter of the parties has filed a suit for partition of the joint property on 12.10.2006. The petitioner has moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the instance in the application under Section 24 of the Act, are incorrect; false and also in contradiction to the averments made in the suit for partition filed on behalf of the minor daughter of the parties. Thus, it is alleged that the respondent-wife is to be proceeded against under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has not given specific instance in the application or in the suit for partition pointing out fabrication; contradiction or falsity but in the written arguments (Annexure P.4), the petitioner has given details of such infirmities. A perusal of the said arguments would show that the petitioner has disputed the extent of the properties owned by him or the share which he had in the properties disclosed by the wife or daughter of the parties.

5. Without going into the extent of contradictions or furnishing of incorrect information, suffice it to say that the application under Section 24 of the Act is to be decided summarily on the basis of the averments made in the application and the affidavit appended thereto. The wife has given details of the properties of the husband, which she perceived to be that of her husband. The Court has considered the extent of the properties owned by the petitioner on the basis of reply filed and passed an order of interim maintenance. The said order of interim maintenance has been affirmed by this Court and also by the Honble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 15961 of 2007, which was dismissed on 11.2.2008. The petitioner has filed another SLP aggrieved against the order passed by this Court on 9.7.2007 in the review petition. The said S.L.P. (C) No. 2062 of 2008 was adjourned by four weeks on 2.5.2008 on the ground of the illness of the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the le