Judgment Inveighing the order dated 212. 2009 passed in E.P. No. 2/09 in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2003 by the Sub Court, Perambalur, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. Despite printing the name of the respondent no one appeared and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petitioner would run thus: The respondent herein filed the E.P.No.2 of 2009 in the Sub Court, Perambalur, for recovering the interim maintenance ordered earlier in the matrimonial proceedings, which was contested by the revision petitioner herein on various grounds. Ultimately, the executing Court dismissed it. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focused on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: .(i) The very H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2003 itself was withdrawn by the revision petitioner herein and in such a case the interim maintenance awarded in that H.M.O.P. cannot be recovered by the respondent. .(ii) The lower Court wrongly understanding the provisions of law simply discarded the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and ordered attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently submit that the respondent was not at all appearing in the connected proceedings and even before this Court she has not chosen to appear and even divorce was granted in the subsequent proceedings initiated by the revision petitioner herein. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court in rejecting the contentions and objections raised by the revision petitioner herein as against the E.P.No.2 of 2009 filed by the respondent? 7. A mere perusal of the order of the lower Court and the typed set of papers and also considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is evident that the E.P.No.2 of 2009 was filed by the respondent herein to recover the interim maintenance ordered during the pendency of H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2003 and subsequently that H.M.O.P.was not pressed by the revision petitioner. 8. 8. I am of the considered view that law is quite well settled that interim maintenance awarded could be recovered by the beneficiary concerned if the said amount has not been paid by the person bound to pay. In this case it is evident that in view of the H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2003 having been not pressed by the revision petitioner that H.M.O.P.was dismissed and that it does not mean that the revision petitioner suo motu legally exonerated himself from the liability which he incurred to pay interim maintenance as per the order of the Court. If the interpretation of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is accepted it would amount to giving a premium to the person liable to pay interim maintenance not to respect it and the order of the Court would be set at naught by simply not pressing the HMOP. 9. As such I could see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. As far as the contention that the respondent is not appearing in any proceedings is concerned, the law itself takes care of such absence and this Court need not pass any specific order on that. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.