IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1886 of 2006 SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus SMT.MADHU SINGH ----------- 2 11.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, while many things can be said about the impugned order but then one thing is absolutely admitted the petitioner was married to the opposite party and that even if there be an allegation of adultery in the marriage right from very beginning, the petitioner, having filed a suit for divorce within almost one month of the marriage still cannot disown the liability of maintaining her wife and/or avoid the cost of litigation imposed on her, in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that view of the matter, this Court without interfering with the impugned order, would dispose off this civil revision application with a direction to the Court below to take up the hearing of the Matrimonial Suit No. 17 of 2005 expeditiously and ensure that the same is disposed off even by conducting day-to-day hearing within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)