IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.941 of 2007 RAJENDRA PRASAD Versus LACHHAMINA DEVI ----------- 3 22.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party, wife and is employed as a Constable in a Police Department and thus, having sufficient means of at least to bear a cost of Rs. 2,500/- per month by way of maintenance pendentelite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner, however, seems to be correct that the maintenance case should be disposed of on an early date. This Court would accordingly direct the Court below to take up the matrimonial case in its turn and to ensure that when its turn comes, the same is not kept unnecessarily pending and is disposed of expeditiously. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. The dismissal of this application would never mean that the amount of maintenance granted by the 2 Court below, both arrear and current, will not be payable by the petitioner and in fact, the Court below must ensure that the same is paid by the petitioner to the opposite party within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)