IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1484 of 2008 NIPU @ NIPUR KUMAR @ SRI KRISHNA PRASAD Versus PRIYANKA DEVI ----------- 2 25.09.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. It is quite shocking for this Court to note that the impugned order has been passed by the Court below in purported exercise of power under Section 24 of the Act without there being any application to this effect filed by the wife-opposite party. Section 24 of the Act itself says that such a maintenance pendente lite can be awarded provided the person seeking the same, files an application. From the impugned order, it would however, appear that when the effort for amicable settlement had failed the Court below mechanically or may be out of disgust and frustration arising out of failure of its effort of amicable settlement had proceeded to pass the impugned order awarded maintenance. Such an order therefore cannot be countenanced in law and the same must be and is hereby set aside. The Court below will however consider and decide the matter under Section 24 of the Act, if there be any application filed by the opposite party to this effect. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)