JUDGMENT : Deoki Nandan, J. This revision is directed against an order of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Moradabad passed on an appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act from an order dated 1st June, 1977 of the court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad u/s 24 of that Act in a matrimonial suit for judicial separation, being suit No. 64 of 1976. 2. The trial court allowed the application u/s 24 made by the Respondent wife and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance pendentelite from the date of his order i.e. 1st June, 1977 and Rs. 150/- towards expenses of the litigation. 3. Being dissatisfied with that order, the Respondent wife appears to have moved the court of the District Judge, Moradabad u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act and by the order under Appeal the Court of III Additional District Judge which heard the appeal, allowed it and modified the trial court's decree by raising the rate of maintenance pendentelite to Rs. 250/- per month and the amount of expenses of litigation to Rs. 600/-. 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has contended before me that u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 which was in force at that time, an order u/s 24 was not appealable. A plain reading of that provision would show that there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel and this revision application must be allowed and the impugned order must be set aside. 5. However, Mr. A.K. Gupta, appearing for the Respondent, wife, urged before me that the original suit for judicial separation giving rise to the present proceeding has already been dismissed on 21st November, 1978 and the orders passed and the proceeding taken u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act did not survive the dismissal of the suit. He contended that the revision had accordingly become infructuous and this Court should not interfere with the impugned order of the court of III Addl. District Jude, Moradabad. It is true that an order u/s (sic) of the said Act does not survive the decision of the original proceeding in which it is made. He contended that the revision had accordingly become infructuous and this Court should not interfere with the impugned order of the court of III Addl. District Jude, Moradabad. It is true that an order u/s (sic) of the said Act does not survive the decision of the original proceeding in which it is made. Nevertheless if the amount payable under an order u/s 24 is not paid after it has accrued due, the party in whose favour the order was passed can certainly have the order drawn up and executed like a decree for recovery of money. In this case although the liability to pay any maintenance pendente lite ceased on 21st Nov., 1978 when the original suit No. 65 of 1976 was dismissed and did not continue thereafter but in so far as the amount already accrued due under the impugned order are concerned, the Respondent could certainly have proceeded to recover the same by putting the order into execution. In this sense the revision application cannot be said to have become infructuous. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th May, 1978 of the court of the III Addl. District Judge, Moradabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1977 of that court is set aside and the order dated 1st June, 1977 of the Court of Civil Judge, Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 157 of 1976 arising out of suit No. 64 of 1976 is restored. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.