Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mazumdar for the petitioner and Mr. Ahmad for the opposite party No. 2 and Mrs. 1. Sen Choudhary for the State. 2. The order of the revisional Court dated 21-7-1995 has been challenged by the petitioner-husband by reason of which the revisional court has affirmed the order of the Magistrate allowing maintenance to opposite party No. 2. 3. Mr. Mazumdar submits that when the marriage itself was disputed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate could not have passed the order for grant of maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 by way of interim order till final adjudication of the dispute. In support of his contention ho has relied on some decisions. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmad, relying on some contrary views, submits that if the opposite party No. 2 fails before the Magistrate to prove that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, the petitioner can recover the amount which has been paid to the opposite party No. 2 pursuant to the order of the Magistrate. 5. Without going into the legal controversies this application is disposed of with a direction to the Magistrate to dispose of the matter as quickly as possible and preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. During the pendency of the case before the Magistrate (C/7 case 66/92) the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per month to the opposit party No. 2 as has been directed by the Magistrate. The petitioner will deposit the amount before the Magistrate by 10th of each succeeding month and the opposite party No. 2 will be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 7. As regards payment of arrears of maintenance from the date of the order of the Magistrate dated 18-7-1992, it is directed that the realisation of the same shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the case. However, it is made clear that if opposite party No. 2 succeeds in proviug before the Magistrate with cogent evidence that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, the petitioner will pay all the arrears to the Opposite Party No. 2 with 6% interest from the date of the order dated 18-7-1992. However, it is made clear that if opposite party No. 2 succeeds in proviug before the Magistrate with cogent evidence that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, the petitioner will pay all the arrears to the Opposite Party No. 2 with 6% interest from the date of the order dated 18-7-1992. The petitioner will start paying the monthly maintenance from this month i. e. from 10th of November, 1995. 8. Mr. Ahmad submit that in spite of the order dated 9-8-1995 the petitioner has not paid the monthly maintenance to the opposite party No. 2. This assertion has been denied by Mr. Mazumdar. Under these circumstances it is directed that if the aforesaid amount pursuant to order dated 9-8-1995 has not been paid to the opposite party No. 2, the petitioner will deposit the said amount from the month of August, 1995 till October, 1995 along with the monthly maintenance as ordered earlier by 10th of November, 1995. 9. With this direction/observation this application is disposed of. Application disposed of accordingly.