Having heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing opposite party-2, the Court finds that by means of impugned order dated 25.02.2020 court below has decided the application for interim maintenance filed by opposite party-2 in above-mentioned case. As such impugned order is an interlocutory order which has been passed on an application for payment of interim maintenance filed by opposite party-2. Consequently, final adjudication of abovementioned case is yet to be made by court below. Perusal of impugned order goes to show that revisionist did not deny the fact alleged by opposite party-2 that income of revisionist is Rs.40,000/- per month. There is nothing to show that opposite party-2 has not been living separately from revisionist or opposite party is able to maintain herself on account of having sufficient means. Since opposite party-2 is legally wedded wife of opposite party-2, therefore revisionist is legally and morally bound to maintain her. There is nothing on record to show that revisionist has been maintaining his wife since she has been residing separately. Consequently, court below has not committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in passing impugned order dated 25.02.2020. On the basis of material available on record, conclusion drawn by court below cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous.
