IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.865 of 2007 DAISY RANI @ SMT. DAZY Versus AMIT KUMAR & ANR ----------- 2. 25.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order rejecting prayer of the petitioner for grant of maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act does not suffer from any error, inasmuch as when the petition filed for this purpose before the court below, as is contained in Annexure 2 to this application, is examined, it is found that the same did not contain any detail. In that view of the matter, the court below is absolutely correct in coming to the conclusion that none of the ingredients of section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act having been fulfilled he had no other option but to dismiss the application. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act is a provision for maintaining a wife or husband, who does not have his independent source of income during the pendency of the suit by the spouse who has 2 brought the litigation. It has, therefore, been contended that the petitioner is finding it difficult to contest the matter on account of paucity of fund. This Court would not record any conclusive opinion on the said submission but then as the facts would bear it out that earlier two applications of the petitioner have been rejected only on technicality, this Court would grant the petitioner one more opportunity to file a fresh application containing the relevant facts and thereafter the court below after giving opportunity of hearing to the husband-opposite party would pass a fresh order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which in the event of being allowed by way of direction for payment of maintenance pendente lite and/or cost of litigation will be made enforceable only with prospective effect i.e. from the date of filing of the application in pursuance of the present order. It is also made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any arrears for maintenance upto this date i.e. 25th August, 2008. 3 With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/