JUDGMENT 1. - This review petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant before this Court in DB. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2317 of 2003. 2. The aforesaid miscellaneous appeal had been preferred by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment of the learned Family Court dated 05.09.2003 whereby the learned Family Court No.2 Jaipur had dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner for dissolution of the marriage between the parties, which was solemnized on 26.09.1998. 3. Before this Court, during the pendency of the aforesaid miscellaneous appeal bearing No.2317 of 2003, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for awarding maintenance pendente lite was filed. 4. This Court after considering the matter and taking note of the fact that the present petitioner had not filed any reply to the application decided the said application vide order dated 13.07.2005 and awarded maintenance to the respondent-wife @ Rs. 6000/- per month by the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2005. 5. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2005. 6. It has been reported by the Office that the review petition is barred by limitation by 1522 days. Though, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. 7. This Court had directed that notice to be issued to the respondents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide order dated 10.03.2010. Despite service of notice, as reported by the Registry, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 8. We have heard the petitioner in-person and also perused the record. 9. This petition has been filed for review of the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by this Court allowing maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. 10. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2005 the petitioner had admittedly filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was decided vide order dated 19.10.2006, Annexure-3 on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking a note of the facts and circumstances of the case had reduced the amount of maintenance awarded by this Court and modified the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by this Court and instead of Rs. 6,000/- had awarded maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- per month. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking a note of the facts and circumstances of the case had reduced the amount of maintenance awarded by this Court and modified the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by this Court and instead of Rs. 6,000/- had awarded maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- per month. 11. In view of the fact that against the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by this Court the petitioner had himself filed an appeal (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after hearing the parties the Hon'ble Supreme Court had modified the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2005. We find ourselves unable to interfere with the order dated 13.07.2005. 12. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by this Court has merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.10.2005 in SLP (Civil) No.9581 of 2006. 13. In that view of the matter this Court cannot now review the order dated 13.07.2005 and the review petition itself is misconceived. 14. Apart from the above the review petition is highly belated and barred by limitation on account of the delay of 1522 days. No sufficient cause has been shown for this delay. Moreover, the main appeal i.e. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2317/2003 itself has also been decided by the Court and at the time of the hearing of the appeal on 17.04.2007 also no infirmity was pointed out by the petitioner. We find that the review petition deserves to be dismissed on both the grounds delay as well as merits. 15. The review petition and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are accordingly dismissed.Review petition and application dismissed. *******