IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.216 of 2008 RANJIT KUMAR Versus PRIYANKA RANI ----------- 4 8/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2008, whereby and whereunder, the court below has granted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance for the livelihood of his wife-opposite party in the Divorce Case No. 88 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the amount of Rs. 3,000/- is too harsh, in as much as, the salary of the petitioner was Rs. 7405/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, when there was no source of independent income of the wife- opposite party and the gross pay of the petitioner an employee of Central Government Organization being Rs. 8,255/- as on 01.01.2008 out of which only Rs. 620/- was being deducted on account of his subscription of G.P.F/S.P.F/G.I.C and festival advance, this Court would not find any fault with the quantum of Rs. 3,000/-, which is less than 1/3rd of the salary of the petitioner as it is well settled by law that the wife during pendency of the matrimonial case is to be maintained in the same manner and with the same standard as she was enjoying earlier, prior to filing of the matrimonial case by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, order directing payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife of the petitioner 2 cannot be excessive. It was next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of payment for maintenance ought not to have passed with retrospective effect, i.e, from the date of filing of matrimonial case. In this regard counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order of this Court dated 11.9.2007 in the case “ Vikash Kumar Dubey @ Vikash Dubey @ Saroj Dubey Vs Savita Devi“ reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. page 652. In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment in paragraph 8 thereof does not decide the question as to what is the effective date for payment of maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Law. As a matter of fact, there is no such statutory prohibition under section 24 of the Hindu Law, which reads as follows:- “Maintenance, pendent elite and expenses of proceedings:- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and 3 the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. PROVIDED THAT the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding shall, as far as possible , be disposed off within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be. “ From the aforementioned reading of section 24 of the Act, it would become clear that the court has to decide the award of maintenance pendentelite during pendency of the proceeding before it. There is thus no statutory bar for directing paying of maintenance from the date of institution of the matrimonial case. In the case of Vikash Kumar Dubey ( Supra ), this court has while interpreting scope of section 24 of the Act itself held that amount of maintenance can date back even from the date of filing of the matrimonial case. In my considered opinion, neither ratio of the said judgment in the case of Vikash kumar Dubey (supra) lays down any such proposition nor an observation made in paragraph 8 of the judgment can be inferred to be a law laid down by this court that in no event the order granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Act can date back to the date of institution of matrimonial case. In that view of the matter, there is no 4 merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar