IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.339 of 2009 PRABHU NARAIN PRASAD Versus MUNI DEVI ----------- 6/ 22.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. On hearing both the sides, I find sufficient grounds to direct the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in connection with Matrimonial Case No. 127 of 2005 to properly and fully hear the petition by which the wife claimed the cost of treatment of Rs.5000/- from the petitioner. The learned Judge ought to have sought some evidence; at least the evidence on expenses, itemwise before directing the payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/-. It is not disputed that the cost of education of children, treatment or any thing like that could be ordered to be paid by one party to the other if the party who gets benefited out of the order does not have the means of meeting out the expenses but that could not be granted as and when it is asked for. It could always have to be kept in mind that proceeding under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a separate proceeding which has to be conducted in the same proceeding which could be the main matrimonial proceeding and that proceeding has to be concluded after holding some enquiry on the status and means of livelihood of both sides including the sources of income. That part does not appear from the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has undertaken that the petitioner shall pay immediately a sum of Rs.2500 to the wife - 2 - in the court itself as soon as a copy of this order is received by or produced before the court and for rest part of the order, the court below could be holding enquiry. The Civil Revision petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations/directions. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)