IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.973 of 2006 SANJAY @ RAGHU DEPTTY Versus POONAM ----------- 7. 10.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order dated 24.3.2006 granting maintenance pendentilite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on some compromise petition which was filed by both the parties in the court below on 27.9.2002 whereby and whereunder after setting out the terms of compromise a prayer was made that the said compromise petition should be accepted. Counsel submits that both the parties infact have decided to live separately and to obtain divorce from each other but for one reason and another the application till date has not been disposed of by this Court below and in the meantime when the wife opposite party had filed an application on 29.12.2004 seeking grant of maintenance pendentilite under section 24 of the Act, the court below 2 after considering the alleged compromise has awarded Rs. 1000/- by way of monthly maintenance and Rs. 250/- by way of cost of litigation. This Court however on perusal of materials on record would find that amount as directed to be paid cannot be said to be excessive or even illegal even after taking into account that the compromise said to be entered into between the parties dated 7.9.2002 is yet to be accepted by the court. This Court even otherwise would find the terms of compromise really harsh, inasmuch as how a life of a deserted woman and a daughter from the marriage would be sustained in a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- for life long, is any one’s guess. In that view of the matter, while this Court would not express anything further about the efforts of the parties to arrive at a compromise, the court below is definitely expected to look into the mode and terms of compromise which has to be both purposeful and reasonable free from any threat and/or coercion. 3 This Court, therefore, would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and direct the petitioner to pay the amount of maintenance and the cost of litigation as directed in the impugned order. However, taking into consideration that the matrimonial case is of the year 2002 and the end seems to be in sight in view of the alleged compromise petition, the court below is directed to dispose of the matrimonial case within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. As the wife opposite party did not chose to appear despite service of notice and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was kept for her in order to enable her to appear in this case and contest the same, the same has now to be refunded to the counsel for the petitioner. This application is accordingly disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/