IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1143 of 2008 LONI LAWANYA Versus MAJOR RANJEET SONI SINHA ----------- 3 25/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order allowing maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the date of the order cannot be faulted especially when this Court would look into the earlier order passed in C.R. No. 792 of 2007 disposed of on 14.5.2008, which would disclose the story of deliberate avoidance on the part of the petitioner in appearing and contesting the matter. In that view of the matter, when section 24 of the Act does not put any embargo like section 125 of the Cr.P.C, this Court would hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case payment of maintenance from the date of the order does not suffer from any error. Counsel for the petitioner would next contend that the amount of Rs.3,000/- by way of monthly maintenance is too megre amount, in as much as, the petitioner on the basis of salary statement of her husband, opposite party reflecting his gross salary of Rs. 22,560/- per month was entitled at least 1/5th of amount such salary by way of monthly maintenance. In the opinion of this Court such submission on behalf of the petitioner as with regard to claiming monthly maintenance of 1/5th of the gross salary of her husband is not justified, in as much as, gross 2 salary is always subject to certain statutory deductions including provident fund, Income-Tax etc. Therefore, when this Court would find that the take home salary was shown to be Rs. 10,319/- the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as granted by the court below in the facts and circumstances of the case and also when this court finds that the wife, petitioner has sufficiently harassed the opposite party, her husband even in contesting the divorce suit, the amount of monthly maintenance cannot be said to be abnormally low or shockingly disproportionate, and as such this Court cannot interfere even on the quantum of the amount of maintenance. The grievance of the petitioner, in fact, towards interim maintenance, by way of maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, can be remedied by herself if she strictly adheres to the time limit as fixed by this Court in the order dated 14.5.2008 in C.R. No. 792 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the court below has been directed to dispose of the matrimonial case itself within a period of six months, i.e, by 14th November, 2008. Accordingly, if the wife, opposite party would cooperate, her grievance against the interim maintenance would automatically come to an end. With the aforementioned observations/ directions this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar