IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1566 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR Versus MAMATA DEVI & ANR ----------- 3 24.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order setting aside the ex-parte decree, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The Court below has taken all the relevant aspects into consideration while passing of the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner-husband has been sufficiently harassed in course of protracted trial of the matrimonial case and now when the ex-parte decree has been set aside he is to again under go to the same rigour. Counsel for the petitioner accordingly, prayed that the Court below may be directed to dispose of the divorce case at an early date. In the opinion of this Court, such prayer of the petitioner is very fair and accordingly, this Court would direct the Court below to take up the hearing of this case out of turn and proceed to decide the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order provided that the amount of maintenance pendentelite and cost of litigation if any in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is paid by the petitioner to the wife opposite party religiously and punctually. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)