IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1797 of 2007 YOGENDRA PASWAN Versus KAMLA DEVI & ANR ----------- 3. 29.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Pd.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, fairly submits that he would be not seriously questioning the quantum of amount of maintenance. He would however submit that the manner in which the court below has proceeded for fixing the amount has to be deprecated. In order to substantiate this aspect of submission he has referred to the entire order sheet and from perusal of which it would be clear that the court below has rather acted in a hurried manner. It is true that when an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act is filed by the wife claiming maintenance pendentilite the same has to be considered expeditiously but that does not mean that only one day’s accommodation will be allowed to the husband to put his version on record. His further grievance that the 2 amount has been sought to be realized from the petitioner by taking recourse of coercive measures from the very first date of the order fixing amount of maintenance pendentilite, has also a substance. There was infact no question of taking coercive measure on the day on which such an order was passed. The court in fact has unnecessarily gone to make some unsavory comments on the father of the petitioner and in this regard has also entered into realm of speculation that the petitioner was watching the proceeding and was not appearing. All these were not required to be recorded for merely allowing an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act. This Court, however, at this stage would still not interfere with the impugned order, not because they are not illegal but the ends of justice will require that the lady having been awarded a sum of Rs. 800/- per month by way of maintenance pendentilite would be evenly placed in contesting of the divorce suit, which itself needs to be disposed of at an early date. 3 Considering the fact that both the petitioner and the wife belong to the same strata, it would be necessary for the court below to take up hearing of this case expeditiously as soon as the entire arrear and current amount of maintenance is paid by the petitioner to enable the wife-opposite party to contest the divorce case. Mr.Singh would pray for some instalment for payment of arrears. This Court would direct the petitioner to pay the arrears within a period of four months in four equal instalment. The petitioner, however, will be under an obligation to pay current amount on month to month basis as directed by the court below. This Court, however, would find no justification for award of cost in the impugned order. Therefore, that part of the order awarding cost is set aside. After the petitioner deposits the arrear and keeps on paying current amount the court below will take up hearing of the case in a expeditious manner so that the same is disposed of within a period of one 4 Surendra/ year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)