B. C. CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revisional application by the petitioner, husband. It is directed against two orders, dated November 16, 1972 and March 26, 1973 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 1 of 1963 of the 1st Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the suit for a decree of divorce or in the alternative, for judicial separation. The respondent wife, on an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, obtained an order for maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month besides certain amount towards cost of litigation which sum was varied from time to time. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's case is that though the petitioner's evidence has been concluded long ago, the respondent by resorting to various dilatory methods has been delaying the hearing and conclusion of the proceeding. She filed an application in September, 1972 claiming Rs. 2,450/- including a sum of Rs. 400/- towards costs. In this application she claimed arrear maintenance for the period of April,1969 to August, 1972 besides a sum of Rs. 50/- towards costs although an amount of Rs. 450/- had already been paid for the period from April, 1969 to November, 1969. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge in the Court below by his order dated November 16, 1972 ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,450/- as claimed in monthly instalment of Rs. 100/- in addition to the current maintenance of Rs. 50/- and also directed the suit to remain stayed till the amounts were paid. On November 18, 1972 the respondent filed an application for attachment of petitioner's salary for realization of the amount. The petitioner also filed an application on December 14, 1972 for reconsideration of the order dated November 16. By the order dated March 26, 1973 the learned Court below rejected the prayer for attachment of salary as also the petitioner's prayer for reconsideration of the earlier order. By this order the learned Judge observed that the respondent wife may realise the arrear maintenance by execution, if so advised. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner husband filed the present revisional application and obtained the Rule. By this order the learned Judge observed that the respondent wife may realise the arrear maintenance by execution, if so advised. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner husband filed the present revisional application and obtained the Rule. ( 6 ) IT is complained on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Court below acted illegally in staying the suit and at the same time directing the respondent to levy execution for realization of the arrear maintenance. It is further complained that the Court below failed to take into account the amount already paid which cover the claim for the period from December, 1970 to August, 1972. ( 7 ) THE Rule is opposed. ( 8 ) AT the hearing of this application, although the petitioner disputed the amount found due and payable yet it was conceded that there were some arrears which had fallen due. Learned Advocate for the petitioner made a grievance of the fact that the net result of the impugned order is to give to the wife the double benefit of levying execution for the realization of the dues and at the same time staying the suit. It was also argued that there could be no question of any liability to pay maintenance for the period the suit remains stayed. ( 9 ) IN proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court regulates the same by the Code of Civil Procedure and if necessary, may have recourse to its inherent powers under the Code. Where a recalcitrant husband refuses or neglects to pay the maintenance the only recourse open to the wife is not execution. To relegate the wife to such a course, without staying the hearing of the suit, may result in the suit itself being heard out before the expenses may be realized by the process of execution. Therefore levying of an execution is not the only remedy for enforcement of an order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A husband on whom an order under section 24 has been made but who refuses to pay and yet aspired to go on with his suit, must not be encouraged. The best way in such a situation is to stay the suit. (See (1) Smt. Anita v. Birendra, AIR 1962 Cal 88 , (2) Yakub Masih v. Charistina Masih, AIR 1941 All 93 ). The best way in such a situation is to stay the suit. (See (1) Smt. Anita v. Birendra, AIR 1962 Cal 88 , (2) Yakub Masih v. Charistina Masih, AIR 1941 All 93 ). ( 10 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner argued that the Court cannot compel the wife to levy execution where the order for payment of maintenance is not carried. There is no quarrel with the proposition. Indeed it has been observed in the case of Anita v. Birendra (supra) that to do so may result in making the order wholly nugatory or ineffective because the path of execution is not an easy going high way and provides no short-cuts to the destination. It is for this reason that stay of the proceeding is considered as a more effective remedy so that the husband may not have the suit heard out without meeting his own liabilities. ( 11 ) AGAIN this contention does not really help the petitioner for such contention could be effectively taken by the wife if the Court had compelled her to levy execution for the realization of the dues. In fact the Court did not direct her to do so but simply observed that she may file an execution case, if so advised. The question whether stay of the suit and execution proceedings can be simultaneously taken is a different matter. We do not know what is the stage of the execution case and what has come out of it. Therefore, I do not feel constrained to adjudicate on this point. ( 12 ) THE next point argued on behalf of the petitioner is that the wife cannot have the suit stayed and yet claim maintenance for the period of stay. There seems to be no warrant for such a proposition. It was argued that the liability to pay under section 24 arises in connection with a proceeding under the Act and that if the proceeding is stayed there is really no proceeding in which the order could be made. The argument seems to me to be misconceived for section 24 entitled the petitioner (meaning thereby the petitioner under section 24) monthly "during the proceeding" such sum as it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. The argument seems to me to be misconceived for section 24 entitled the petitioner (meaning thereby the petitioner under section 24) monthly "during the proceeding" such sum as it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. ( 13 ) THE fact that the hearing of the suit has been stayed because of the laches of the petitioner husband, does not mean that the suit is non-est or that it has ceased to be a pending suit. The expression, "during the proceeding" as used in the section means during the pendency of the proceeding. In this case, in spite of the stay the suit is undoubtedly pending. To hold that there is no liability to pay maintenance during the period of stay may give the husband an unfair advantage of not paying the maintenance at all and thus keep the suit stayed for an indefinite period. Such a proposition cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) FINALLY, it was contended that in calculating the arrears the learned Court below failed to take into account of certain payments already made. Having looked into the accounts furnished it seems that there may be some substantial point in this contention. ( 15 ) FROM the orders impugned it does not appear that the learned Judge has carefully considered this aspect of the matter. ( 16 ) SUCH being the position, I find that the revisional application at the instance of the husband must fail subject to this modification that the learned Judge will reconsider the plea of part payment as alleged and determine the dues afresh as on the date of the order. Subject to this modification the application is dismissed. The Rule is disposed of accordingly. The order be communicated to the Court below forthwith. The respondent-opposite-party shall get costs of 5 Gms. Rule disposed of