JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The short question for consideration in this revision petition relates to the consequence of noncompliance of an order of the court u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). More precisely stated, whether the court can prohibit the defaulting party to prosecute the proceeding. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present proceeding may be stated thus: The opposite party filed O.S. No. 5 of 1980 against the Petitioner u/s 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. The suit is pending before the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi. During pendency of the said suit, on the application of the Petitioner u/s 24 of the Act, for grant of interim maintenance and legal expense, the trial court, by its order dated 16-7-1982 in M.J.C. No. 42 of 1981, directed the opposite party to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 501- per month to the Petitioner from the date of filing of the petition u/s 24 of the Act, i.e., from 25-11-1981. On the next day, i.e., 9-8-1982, when the case came up for hearing and the opposite party (husband) was ready with his witnesses to proceed with the case, the counsel for the Petitioner filed a memorandum stating therein that as the order of the court directing interim maintenance and legal expenses had not been complied with, the proceeding should be stayed till the said order was complied with. On this objection the parties were heard on 10-8-1982. The court by order dated 18-8-1982 refused to entertain the objection and directed that the suit shall proceed. This order of the court is under challenge in this case. 3. A perusal of the impugned older shows that the reasons given by the court below are two fold: (i) That the order directing payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses was passed two years after the filing of the suit. (ii) That the order dated 16-7-1982 was not made a condition precedent for taking up the suit for trial. 4. The position is fairly well settled that in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court, in exercise of its inherent power, can stay the proceeding till its order granting interim maintenance and legal expenses u/s 24 of the Act is implemented or pass any other appropriate order for implementation of the said direction. 4. The position is fairly well settled that in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court, in exercise of its inherent power, can stay the proceeding till its order granting interim maintenance and legal expenses u/s 24 of the Act is implemented or pass any other appropriate order for implementation of the said direction. The provisions u/s 28 of the Act, whereunder all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in the like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced, do not stand on the way of the court from passing an order of stay, The salutary principle is that Section 24 of the Act is intended to help a needy and indigent spouse. Wide discretion is vested in the court to enable it to see that the indigent spouse is put in a financial condition in which the party concerned may produce proper material and evidence in the case and that a party is not handicaped in or prevented from bringing all relevant facts before the court for decision of the case because of his or her poverty. See Smt. Malkan Rani Vs. Krishan Kumar. Therefore, the reason given by the trial court that since the order u/s 24 of the Act is available to be executed by the wife there is no need to insist on its implementation before proceeding further with the suit is erroneous and irrelevant. The other reason given by the trial court is equally erroneous. The court below, as noticed earlier, took the circumstance that the order u/s 24 of the Act was passed nearly two years after the institution of the suit, as a plea to refuse to reconsider the request for implementation of the order as a condition precedent for prosecuting the suit. From the provisions of Section 24 of the Act it is clear that an order for maintenance, pendenti lite and expenses of proceeding can be passed at any stage in the proceeding. The order presupposes that the court was satisfied that the; wife had no independent income sufficient to support her and to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. Therefore it was immaterial whether the order u/s 24 of the Act was passed immediately after commencement of the proceeding or some time thereafter. The order presupposes that the court was satisfied that the; wife had no independent income sufficient to support her and to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. Therefore it was immaterial whether the order u/s 24 of the Act was passed immediately after commencement of the proceeding or some time thereafter. The real question is whether having passed an older u/s 24 of the Act, the court, if it finds that the party directed to pay the maintenance and expenses does not carry out the order should not necessarily drive the other party to execution and it can take steps to implement its own order by staying the proceeding or make it a condition precedent for proceeding the suit. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the answer to the question is that it is not mandatory that the party to be benefited by an order u/s 24 of the Act should invariably be driven to execute the order in case the other party does not carry out the order, and the court in exercise of its inherent powers can stay the proceeding or pass such other appropriate order to compel the recalcitrant party to implement the order. The aforesaid view gains support from the decisions reported in Smt. Malkan Rani Vs. Krishan Kumar Bhuneshwar Prasad Vs. Dropta Bai M. Ramachandra Rao v. M.S. Kowsalya AIR 1969 Mys 76 and Mahalingam Pillai Vs. Amsavalli, . 5. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be vacated. Accordingly, the civil revision is allowed and the order dated 18-8-1982 in O.S. No. 5 of 1980 pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi is vacated. The said suit shall stand stayed till the order dated 16-7-1982 directing the opposite party to pay maintenance, pendente lite and legal expenses to the Petitioner is complied with in full. Parties shall bear their respective costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Allowed