ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.6.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Court below has accepted the application of the respondent preferred under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and directed the present petitioner to pay Rs.3000/- per month as interim maintenance. This is an admitted fact between the parties that during the pendency of this petition the Case No. 230A/11 HMA in which interlocutory order Annexure P-1 is passed is finally decided. Against the said judgment, appeal was filed before this Court which has already been dismissed. 2. The singular ground of attack of Shri H.K.Shukla is based on (2005) 3 SCC 636 (Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others), (2010) 10 SCC 469 (D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal) and judgment of this Court in I.L.R. (2013) M.P. 956 (Tarachand Vishwakarma v. Smt. Pushpa Devi Vishwakarma). On the basis of these judgments, it is urged that the petitioner has a living spouse. His earlier wife is already living and the marriage tie with her is still intact. Thus, alleged second marriage with present respondent is a void marriage and no benefit can be claimed on the basis of the said second marriage, which is not legal or lawful. 3. Per contra, Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondent relied on 2002(1) MPWN 239 (Mohanlal v. Chief Executive Executive Officer). This is relied upon to submit that the writ petition against the interim order becomes infructuous on decision of main case by the trial Court. The interim order stood merged in final order passed by the trial Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The judgment of this Court in Tarachand (supra) is based on judgment of Supreme Court in D. Velusamy (supra). However, the apex Court in a recent judgment reported in (2014)1 SCC 188 (Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another) reconsidered the issue regarding the claim of maintenance arising of out section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in favour of second wife. However, the apex Court in a recent judgment reported in (2014)1 SCC 188 (Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another) reconsidered the issue regarding the claim of maintenance arising of out section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in favour of second wife. The apex Court after considering earlier judgments of Supreme Court including Savitaben (supra) distinguished those judgments and opined that the ratio arising out of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben (supra) would apply only in those cases where a woman marries a man with full knowledge of subsistence of his first marriage. 6. In the written statement filed before the Court below (Annexure P-3), the respondent has specifically pleaded that the present petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent by suppressing the fact that he had already solemnized marriage earlier. Thus, the present case is covered by the recent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Badshah (supra). The ratio of the judgments cited by Shri Shukla are considered by Supreme Court in recent judgment in Badshah (supra). Thus, the said judgments are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present petition. 7. Apart from this, admittedly, the main case in which Annexure P-1 is passed is already dismissed. The said order is affirmed by the High Court. The interlocutory order Annexure P-1 stood merged in the final order passed by the Court below. The final order is upheld by this Court. For these cumulative reasons, I find no justification for interference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.