ORDER 1. As submitted by both the parties, the only point in dispute is that in a case where interim maintenance was awarded in favour of such a person who subsequently not found entitled for maintenance vide final order, whether for intermediate period that person is entitled to receive the maintenance or not? 2. It is admitted by both the parties that vide order dated 12th October, 2004, Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as interim maintenance to respondent No.1 and subsequently vide final order dated 10th March, 2006, it has been observed by the Court that respondent No. 1 is not entitled for maintenance. 3. Vide impugned order dated 2nd February, 2007, passed by principal Judge of family Court Gwalior in Case No. 100/06, it is observed that respondent wife is entitled for an amount of maintenance for a period in between 12th October 2004 to 10th March, 2006. On perusal of the final order dated 10th March, 2006, it appears that on the ground that the petitioner was already married, it has been observed that respondent No. 1 is not legally married wife. Respondent No.2 is son of both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is not disputed. In view of the observation of this Court in Indra Kumar v. Raj Kumar Mahant [ 1973 JLJ 652 ] it appears that the subsequent order cancelling the earlier maintenance order cannot be made effective retrospectively. This observation has been followed by another Bench of this Court in Samudri Bai v. Chokhelal [ 1981 (1) MPWN 5 ]. In view of this observation, it can safely be observed that the subsequent order dated 10th March, 2006 cannot be made effective retrospectively. Vide perusal of this order, it also appears that it has not been directed that it will be applicable from any earlier date. The observation of the apex Court in the case of Savitaben v. State of Gujarat and others [2005 (II) MPWN 15 = 2005 SC (Cri) 787] and also in Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat [ AIR 1986 SC 984 ] as cited on behalf of the petitioner do not support his contention as nothing has been observed by the apex Court on this point in these cases. 4. Consequently, the impugned order being not erroneous, revision is dismissed.