P. K. Bahri ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 as damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant. I may mention that the deft. in this suit was duly served and had put in appearance through Mr. N. B. Sinha, Advocate and had obtained adjournments for filing the w/s but finally on 8. 5. 1987, a last opportunity was granted to the deft. for filing the w/s subject to payment of Rs. 500. 00 as costs. It appears that the deft. had prepared the w/s and had supplied copy of the same to counsel for the pff. but the costs which were imposed vide order dated May 8, 1987, were not paid and the court on August 4, 1987, declined the request for another adjournment made on behalf of the deft. for paying the costs and for filing the w/s Counsel for the deft. had been appearing on some of the dates fixed for recording evidence but later on counsel had stopped appearing in the case and deft. has not taken any steps whatsoever for aside of order by which he was not setting granted any further time for filing w/s and for payment of costs. So, the defendant is ex parte in this suit. ( 2 ) THE pff. has submitted his own affidavit and affidavits of Mohd. Suleman, Vidya Bhushan Misra, Smt. Shanta Parmar and Sudhir Jain in support of his case who have been also examined in court and deposed that they reiterate the contants of the said affidavits and prayed that the same may be read as part of their respective testimony. ( 3 ) FACTS which have emerged out from the said affidavits and the documents proved are that the pff. ( 3 ) FACTS which have emerged out from the said affidavits and the documents proved are that the pff. is academically highly qualified as he holds a degree in Master of Arts in Psychology and has been carrying on business as building contractor being approved as A Class PWD Contractor in Punjab and Delhi and he and his wife and his son being regularly assessed to income-tax since 1955 and was also having a factory under the name and style of Multifaviour Actavaties at NOIDA and is owning 33, Bangalow Road, Delhi and is also a social worker and is also General Secretary of NOIDA Industrialists Association which is registered under the Indian Societies Act having registered office at H-25, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Branch Office at NOIDA. According to the plaintiff, he, as General Secretary, has been helping in the redressal of grievances of the industrialists of NOIDA and he has been also practising as an industrial consultant under the name and style of R. K. Consultant Bureau. It is mentioned that Smt. Shanta Parmar is having a factory in the property bearing No. W-43, Sector XI, NOIDA, belonging to the deft. and she is inducted in the said premises by the deft. as tenant and she is carrying on manufacturing business. Deft. was keen to have Smt. Shanta Parmar vacate his premises and had approached the pff. for rendering some assistance in the matter whereas Smt. Shanta Parmar had been also approaching the pff. complaining about harassment she was suffering at the hands of the deft. Pff. is stated to have refused to render any help to the deft. in harassing his tenant Smt. Shanta Parmar. So, it is averred that the deft. was very much annoyed with the pff. and out of malice the deft. is stated to have lodged a false complaint u/ss. 147, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code in which he cited the pff. as one of the co-accused alongwith his son and tenant Smt. Shanta Parmar and some other persons. The averments made in the said complaint were that on May 31, 1985, the accused had held out threats to the deft. and had hurled filthy abuses and had beaten the deft. In the said complaint the Magistrate 1st. class of Ghaziabad had issued non-bailable warrants against the pff. which deft. tried to serve on the pff. The averments made in the said complaint were that on May 31, 1985, the accused had held out threats to the deft. and had hurled filthy abuses and had beaten the deft. In the said complaint the Magistrate 1st. class of Ghaziabad had issued non-bailable warrants against the pff. which deft. tried to serve on the pff. with the aid of the police at the factory premises of plaintiff s wife and also at residential address of the pff. at Delhi but the pff. was not available, so was not arrested. The def. is stated to have then collected various persons at the said places and held out threats against the pff. and proclaimed that that pff. was a criminal and was evading arrest. ( 4 ) ONE of the accused Smt. Shanta Parmar filed a revision petition in the courts of Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, against the order of the Magistrate by which summons and non-bailable warrants had been issued against the accused and vide order dated 21. 12. 85, the revision petition was accepted and the complaint was quashed. It was held that a completely false complaint had been lodged by the deft. and he also found that in intervention by the High Court in the W. P. that the dispossession was stayed. The order of the A. D. J. dt. 25. 11. 1989 reducing the maintenance of the wife and the child cannot be said to be justified and legal. The wife has also not been able to make out any case for enhancement of the maintenance for herself and the child. The order passed u/s. 24 is an interim order passed during the pendency of the divorce proceedings and no finality can be attached to such type of orders. In these circumstances, I accept this revision and set aside the impugned order dt. 25. 11. 1989 passed by the A. D. J. The order of the A. D. J. passed on 7. 8. 87 awarding Rs. 600. 00 to the wife and Rs. 400. 00 to the child shall continue.