IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.185 of 2010 SATENDRA KUMAR SON OF THAKUR BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF DAUDNAGAR PURANA SAHAR MALI TOLA, P.O.& P.S. DAUDNAGR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD…… APPELLANT Versus 1. ANURADHA PUSHPANJALI @ POONAM DEVI, WIFE OF SATENDRA KUMAR, DAUGHTER OF LATE BIKU BHAGAT, R/O OF VILLAGE-ANGARI, P.S. ANGARI, DISTT- NALANDA 2. NAGENDRA BHAGAT, SON OF LATE RAM RATAN BHAGAT, R/O VILLAGE- ANKOPUR, P.S. CHOWRAM, DISTRICT- ARWAL, AT PRESENT DAUDNAGAR, SINCHAI PRAMANDAL COLONY, DAUDNAGAR, P.O.& P.S. DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD……….. ……………………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, SR. ADVOCATE, Mr.BINOD KR.SINHA,ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-2 :- MR. RAVINDRA PD. SINGH, ADVOCATE ------------ 5 10-02- 11 Heard learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 who is wife of the appellant. By the order under appeal the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad has allowed a limited relief to respondent no.1 by allowing Rs.5,000/-per-month as maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act pendente lite for respondent no.1 and her daughter said to be aged about 5 years. 2 On behalf of appellant it has been submitted that appellant may be getting Rs.19,000/- per month as a teacher in the Government Primary School but he has taken loan due to certain compulsion for which he is paying Rs.6,000/- per month as instalment and after certain deductions, as noted by the Principal Judge he gets only Rs.8,500/- per month in his hand and therefore the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance during the pendency of the divorce suit filed by the appellant is excessive and the amount should have been kept as Rs.2500/- which was being paid under the interim direction of this Court. Considering the monthly salary of the plaintiff- appellant and the need of respondent no.1 to maintain herself and her daughter who should now also undertake her studies, we are of the view that Rs.5,000/- by way of interim relief as granted by the Family Court, Aurangabad is appropriate and does not require interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The matrimonial suit for divorce is pending since 2007 and hence the court below is directed to see that if differences between the husband and wife are not resolved on 3 account of mediation/ conciliation the suit itself be decided expeditiously preferably within six months. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Gopal Prasad,J)