Judgment K.K. Acharya, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that there is clear cut admission of Smt. Saroj that she along with her children resided with the petitioner from 20.4.2003 to 26.2.2004, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance for the aforesaid period. He further states that the petitioner is regularly paying the monthly amount of maintenance. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that if this fact has come on record as admission, he has nothing to say in the matter. 4. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by both the parties. Since, respondent No. 2 herself has admitted this fact that she alongwith her children resided with the petitioner from 20.4.2003 to 26.2.2004, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance for the aforesaid period. Accordingly, both the orders passed by Courts below are modified upto the extent that the petitioner shall not pay the maintenance to the respondent No. 2 for the period from 20.4.2003 to 26.2.2004. The respondent No. 2 is not entitled for the maintenance for the period from 20.4.2003 to 26.2.2004. However, the petitioner shall regularly pay the amount of monthly maintenance to the respondent No. 2 as per previous orders. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the miscellaneous petition stands disposed of .