IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1246 of 2007 DILIP KUMAR Versus ANJANI DEVI ----------- 2 26.08.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the submission on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order fixing Rs. 1,000/- by way of monthly maintenance in exercise of power under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is bad because the Court below had not considered the evidence and have passed the order without there being any material on record, is to be noticed only for its being rejected. This Court, from the discussions made in the impugned order would find that the petitioner’s agricultural income was taken into consideration and the personal income out of other resources were taken into account and therefore, for the purposes of ad interim maintenance, the Court had only fixed the amount by way of Rs. 1000/- per month. Such amount of Rs. 1000/- per month is not excessive much less illegal in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which does not require the Court to go into a detailed procedure for recording evidence. It is to be only satisfied with regard to the means of income as also the requirement of the - 2 - party and if that test fulfilled in the impugned order, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the same. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is directed to deposit both the arrears and the current amount as directed in the impugned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)