JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the orders dated 22.2.1991 and 17.7.1991 passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil suit No. 94-A/90 challenging the quantum of maintenance. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier the Court had granted Rs.225/- per month as interim maintenance to the non-applicant but subsequently, by the impugned orders, interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month was granted to the non-applicant. The review application of the applicant has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.7.1991. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the order dated 22.2.1991 is not the consenting order, as written by the trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the non-applicant, the order was very much with the consent of the parties. I see no merit in this case. The impugned order dated 22.2.1991 goes to show that it was the consenting order signed by the parties and subsequently by the advocate appearing for the applicant. It cannot be said that it was not the consenting order. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the subsequent order dated 17.7.1991 rejecting the review application also seems to be correct. Though the applicant submits that he is a clerk and has to feed all his children and old parents but he is ready to pay Rs.225/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, as ordered earlier. The difference comes to Rs.75/- per month only. Before this Court also, no affidavit of the advocate representing the applicant in the lower Court has been filed to show that the order was not the consenting order. In view of this, no interference in this revision petition is called for. It is dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.