IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6525 of 2010 Murari Krishna Sahay, son of late Achyutanand Sahay, presently posted SSO(A) in the office of Dy. FA & CAO/S&W/East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District Vaishali at Hajipur. ……. Petitioner versus Smt. Neelam Sahay @ Babi daughter of late Surendra Prasad Sinha, and wife of Sri Murari Krishna Sahay, resident of Mohalla Tilha Dharmshala, Brij Kunj Gali, P.S. Civil Line, Gaya, District Gaya. ….. Respondent ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent: None. --------- 04/ 01.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing order dated 09.09.2009 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 467 of 2007, by which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna allowed the petition of the respondent under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and directed the petitioner to pay to his wife, namely, the respondent Rs.4,200.00 per month towards maintenance pendente lite since the date of filing of the said application under section 24 of the Act and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 to her as cost of litigation. 3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the court below has considered in detail the respective claims of the parties, the materials on record as well as the settled principles of law with respect thereto including the decision of a Bench of this Court in case of Nilay Kant Mishra .vrs Vibha Mishra, reported in 2007(3) PLJR 96. 2 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent and they are living separately and out of their two children, one is living with the respondent, whereas, mother of the petitioner is living with him. The court below has gone in detail while considering the income ( salary ) of the petitioner, which was earlier about Rs.8,400.00, but it subsequently went up to about Rs.16,800.00. So far the cost of litigation allowed by the court below is concerned, in these days it does not appear to be excessive, specially when the respondent has been able to prove that she has got no source of income. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, since the matrimonial case for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner is continuing for more than three years and only interlocutory applications are being decided and the matter is unnecessarily delayed, the court below is directed to expedite the proceedings of the case so that it is disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )