JUDGMENT:- Heard Mrs, Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner and Shri. Aurangabadkar, Advocate for respondent. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties, 2. The petitioner in this petition is challenging the order passed by the Family Court No.2, Nagpur, by which her application for grant of enhancement in the interim maintenance was rejected. The impugned order reads thus: "Application is rejected as there is no provision for enhancement of maintenance amount in interim application. As provision of interim maintenance is stop gap provision till deciding petition on merit. Hence party should try to decide petition as earliest as possible at that the time of deciding petition on merit permanent alimony issue can be decided but not at this juncture, After verifying whole record, it seems that it is applicant/respondent herself who is prosecuting this petition and now allowed to decide matter as earliest as possible by moving interim application in between this petition is tiled on 1,7.2004 and respondent applicant received summons on 30.9,2004. On 18,3.2005 filed her W.S. but there after till 30.11.2006 when N.A./Petitioner filed his examination-in-chief various interim application filed. After the further examination-in-chief of N.A./Petitioner was on 17,11.2007, Since then till today, applicant/respondent has not completed her cross. This is clearly abused of process of Jaw. Hence application is deserves to be rejected. And court is not allow to use its inherent power for abusing process of law" 3. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to support the impugned order. 4. It appears that the petition between the parties is pending since 2004. The cross-examination of the petitioner before the Family Court is undergoing. It need to he directed that the petition of the petitioner be disposed of as early as possible, in any case within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 5. It is necessary to observe that one of the grounds mentioned by the learned Family Court upon which application is rejected, is that there is no provision of enhancement of maintenance amount in interim application. 6. It is necessary to bear in mind that interim maintenance is an order which is meant for providing subsistence during the pendency of proceedings. In these circumstances, enhancement or the reduction in the interim maintenance can be sought by an application. if there is change of circumstances or extraordinary long delay in disposal of matter. 6. It is necessary to bear in mind that interim maintenance is an order which is meant for providing subsistence during the pendency of proceedings. In these circumstances, enhancement or the reduction in the interim maintenance can be sought by an application. if there is change of circumstances or extraordinary long delay in disposal of matter. even though there is no express statutory provision to pass such order. In this view of the matter. the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned family Judge is directed to dispose of the petition between the parties as early as possible in any case within a period of months from the receipt of communication of this order. Parties to co-operate with the learned Judge for disposal of the matter as directed. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to move fresh application in the Family Court for enhancement of interim maintenance, if required so. The same shall be decided on its own merits, if such application is preferred. Petition stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.