Judgment Ghanshyam Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 22.1.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani in M.R. No. 30 of 2005 thereby the learned Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the petitioner under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only from 12.7.2005 to 25.5.2006 i.e. from the date of filing of the case till the show cause was filed. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the court below has erred to place reliance upon a decision reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R (Abdul Mannan V/s. Shaira Khatoon and Ors.). The fact is that the said ruling has impliedly been over-ruled in view of the decision reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3551 (Shamim Ara V/s. State of U.P. and Anr.). It is further submitted that the learned court below has not specifically dealt with the fact that the alleged divorce taken by the petitioner is valid and legal and has passed the impugned order without giving any specific findings upon the disputed point of divorce. It is further submitted that the court below has erred to order the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay maintenance amount only for the period from the date of filing of the case till the show cause was filed. 3. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 conceded that no specific finding has been given by the lower court on the point of divorce as alleged in the show cause filed by Opposite Party No. 2. He also conceded that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Abdul Manan (Supra) has been over-ruled in view of decision of the apex court passed in case of Shamim Ara (Supra) 4. Considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 3551 (Supra) as well as 2002(2) PLJR 320. 5. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court the decision of Hon ble High Court reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 320 has been impliedly over-ruled. Therefore placing reliance upon above decision is apparently illegal and bad in law. 6. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.1.2007 is hereby set aside. 7. Therefore placing reliance upon above decision is apparently illegal and bad in law. 6. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.1.2007 is hereby set aside. 7. The matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law laid down in the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3551 (Supra). The matter must be decided after hearing the parties within a period of two months of receipt of this order.