IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.634 of 2008 SANGITA PANDEY @ SANGITA DEVI Versus SUDHIR KUMAR PATHAK ----------- 2 19.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. This Court is literally amazed with the approach of the Court below in disposing of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It appears to this Court that the Court below has failed to distinguish between the concept of Section 24 of the Act and Section 25 thereof. A question of permanent alimony is to be decided at the time of or after the decree of divorce whereas a question of maintenance pendentelite under Section 24 of the Act is the requirement of law during course of proceedings. The Court below some how has been guided by the impression that the issue of payment of maintenance pendentelite can be gone into at the time of final judgment by way of permanent alimony. Such approach of the Court below is absolutely vitiated in law and cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, any impression that was created in the mind of the Court below by an order of this Court dated 21.12.2006 out of Cr. Misc. No. 10303 2 of 2006 was also wholly misconceived. This Court in the order dated 21.12.2006 while granting anticipatory bail to the husband-opposite party had made it clear that he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month during the pendency of the trial i.e. the miscellaneous case. This amount of Rs. 1,000/- therefore was clearly referable to the criminal case and could not have been a ground for rejecting altogether the claim of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Act. This aspect of the matter was also clarified by this Court in the same order in the following terms:- “The aforesaid money paid to the Opposite party no.2 by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to her rights to move before the appropriate form for a claim of maintenance and otherwise. The present amount shall then merge in any such order that may be passed by any competent court of law.” It would thus be clear that when the Court below could have proceeded to pass an order under Section 24 of the Act, it could have taken into account the availability of funds of Rs. 1,000/- by way of order dated 21.12.2006. That by itself would not have been a circumstance or a reason to altogether dismiss the application under Section 24 of the Act. This Court therefore, would set aside the 3 impugned order and remit the matter back to the Court below to pass an appropriate order strictly in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner would inform this Court that during pendency of this case, the matrimonial case has since been transferred from Muzaffarpur to Patna therefore, a fresh order is required to be passed by the Family Court, Patna. With the aforementioned observations, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)