IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.657 of 2009 Roma Devi @ Khushboo Pathak. D/o Mukteshwar Pathak, R/o Dumari, P.S.-Simri, Distt.-Buxar. Opp. Party….Petitioner. Versus Shishukant Mishra, son of Sri Ved Prakash Mishra, R/o Village- Raghunathpur, P.S.-Brahampur, Distt.-Buxar. …..Petitioner-Opp.Party. ----------- 02. 15.05.2009 Heard Sri Shiva Shankar Pd. Singh for the petitioner. In spite of not having a notice to the opposite party, I have decided to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition which raises a very frustrated question of shutting down the evidence without recording the evidence of the petitioner. In fact, Order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Buxar in Matrimonial Petition No. 29 of 2007 could be an indicator of the fact that for many days the petitioner was not present in the court below and in spite of her counsel being informed no effort was being taken by the petitioner to adduce her evidence in the court below during the hearing of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the provision of Section 24 specially its amended part by which a provision was added which made - 2 - it mandatory for a Court to dispose of the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband as separate. My attention was further drawn to Annexure-4 which is the copy of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Buxar and it is indicated that the petition was filed on 31st July, 2008 and there is nothing on record to controvert the submission. That particular petition was not disposed of and the Court started taking evidence of the husband. I am well aware that evidence of the wife may not be obstructed on account of the pendency of petition but I find substantial reason that the petitioner not appearing or produced for evidence in the court below by Annexure-5 petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has made a prayer for being granted maintenance allowance as also cost of litigation. It was contended before me that the lady is dependant upon her father who does not have sufficient means to support the litigation thrust upon the petitioner and as such she was placed in a serious financial - 3 - crisis forcing her not to attend the proceeding. I direct, the court below to allow the petitioner to lead her evidence but before the court below proceeds to record her evidence on her part, I can issue further a fresh direction to the court below that it should make an introspection of itself and assign reason by drawing up an appropriate order as to why the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was such an urgent petition was not disposed of and the learned Judge who was presiding over the proceeding of the Matrimonial Petition No. 29 of 2007 was disobeying the mandate of law as indicated above. The court below shall hold an inquiry on the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, dispose it of with all urgency and then only shall proceed to receive the evidence of the parties as directed above. Thus petition is accordingly disposed of. Vikash/- (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)