JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA, who has accepted notice on behalf of the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that by the order dated 31.10.2008, learned court below granted interim maintenance to the opposite party and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance @ of Rs.1,000/- per month. The revisionist is paying interim maintenance as per the direction of the Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was mentioned in the order itself that after the appearance of the opposite party if it is found that the amount of maintenance should be varied, the same shall be done after hearing the parties. 3. The submission is that the revisionist has appeared before the court and has filed objection against the order dated 31.10.2008, but till now his objection has not been disposed of and the learned court below proceeding with the case. 4. Learned AGA has no objection in case a direction is issued to the learned court below to consider the objection of the revisionist. 5. In view of above, the revision is finally disposed of with a direction to the learned court below, before whom the aforesaid proceedings are pending, to decide the objection of the revisionist filed on 28.01.2009 before proceeding with the case. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed of.