IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2381 of 2007 PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH Versus MINAKSHI DEVI ----------- 3 5/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court when the petitioner did not choose to controvert the assertion made in the application filed by the wife seeking ad- interim maintenance during pendency of the matrimonial case filed by the petitioner, the amount so fixed by way of ad-interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 300/- per month by way of cost of litigation in the order dated 6.2.2007 under Section-24 of Hindu Marriage Act is neither excessive nor illegal. The consequential impugned order dated 7.9.2007 directing issuance of distress warrant for realization of the amount also cannot be assailed by the petitioner. It appears from the records that the suit for divorce has been brought by the petitioner in the year 2005 and when the opposite party in her application dated 23.12.2006 had come out with clear 2 prayer for grant of ad-interim maintenance in order to maintain herself as also to contest the case filed by the petitioner. Such application under the provisions of section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act was required to be disposed of within sixty days and that having been done by the court below by its order dated 6.2.2007 cannot be objected by the petitioner. That being so, if the court below has ultimately by the impugned order has taken coercive steps for realization of ad-interim maintenance, the same would not shock the conscience of this Court specially when the amount of monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month considering the present market index cannot be excessive and/or illegal. This Court would therefore not interfere with the impugned order. At this stage, Mr. T.N.Mathin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that a direction may be given to the court below to dispose of the matrimonial case itself. This Court however being not aware as to how many 3 proceeding are pending before the family court, would only observe that if the case of the petitioner has matured for hearing and if the cases of the year 2005 have been taken-up for disposal, hearing of the case of the petitioner may also be expedited so that the dispute itself comes to an end at an early date. The petitioner however is directed to pay arrear and current amount of maintenance within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order fairly which the court below may take appropriate coercive steps against the petitioner for realization of the amount as per its order dated 6.2.2007. With the aforesaid observation/ direction this civil revision application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar