JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition relates to the date with effect from which the Petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance from the opposite party. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus: The Petitioner is the wife of the opposite party. She filed Title Suit No. 34 of 1982 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for judicial separation. . In the said suit she filed an application u/s 24 of the Act claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expense. The petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 79 of 1982. The opposite party filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1982 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sonepur u/s 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. By order passed by this Court both the suits are being tried by the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir. After her suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bolangir> the Petitioner filed an application for' interim maintenance and litigation expenses in the suit filed by the opposite party and the said application was registered Misc. Case No. 76 of 1984. Both the Misc. Cases, as it appears from the records, were taken up together by the learned Subordinate Judge but were disposed of by separate orders, Misc. Case No. 76 of 1984 being disposed of earlier. In the said case the Court below allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay to the wife interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month and Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses with effect from November, 1984. Thereafter, when Misc. Case No, 79 of 1982 was taken up the, Court disposed it of with the observation that since he had already passed orders directing payment of interim maintenance to the Petitioner, no separate order was necessary to be passed. This order, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, deprived her from getting interim maintenance with effect from the date of her first application, that is, May, 1982 and the difference was considerable since the intervening period 'was more than two years. 3. This order, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, deprived her from getting interim maintenance with effect from the date of her first application, that is, May, 1982 and the difference was considerable since the intervening period 'was more than two years. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Court below ought to have directed the opposite party to pay interim maintenance with effect from the date of the first application filed by the Petitioner and the impugned order passed overlooking the position is unsustainable. The quantum awarded as interim maintenance and litigation expenses is not questioned before me. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is not entitled to two sets of interim maintenance in the two misc. cases. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of Samru Singh Vs. Dhanamani Singh and in the case of Gouri Das Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Das. In the latter case considering the expression .'during the proceeding" in Section 24 of the Act it was observed that commencement or proceeding is not from the stage of settlement of issues, the proceeding commences from the period when the wife comes forward for such payment before filing of written statement. It was further observed in the case that ordinarily direction for payment of interim maintenance u/s 24 should be from the date of service of summons, but no bard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter and the Court has to decide an consideration of facts and circumstances and the conduct of parties in each case. In case of laches and inordinate delay in making the application, the same may be taken into consideration for not allowing the claim prior to the date of the application. In the case of Jwala Prasad v. Meena Devi and Ors. 1 (1986) D.M.C. 252 the Allahabad High Court uphold the order of the trial Court directing payment of interim maintenance with effect' from the date when the application u/s 9 of the Act was filed. 4. From the principles laid down in' the decided cases referred to above, it is clear that ordinarily direction to pay interim maintenance is to take effect from the date of filing of application for the same unless the Court in exercise of its discretion for good reasons decided differently. 4. From the principles laid down in' the decided cases referred to above, it is clear that ordinarily direction to pay interim maintenance is to take effect from the date of filing of application for the same unless the Court in exercise of its discretion for good reasons decided differently. In the present case on perusal of the impugned order it appears that no reason whatsoever was stated by the trial Court for not allowing the prayer of the Petitioner from the date of her -first application. Indeed, it appears that the Court did not consider the matter of all. He passed the impugned order merely observing that he bad already made a direction for payment of interim maintenance in,the other Misc. Case (Misc. Case No. 76 of 1984), overlooking the position that by the date of filing of the petition in that case the Petitioner had already filed an application for the self-same reliefs which was pending before the Court. Thus the factual and important aspect was ignored by the Court and thereby the impugned order was vitiated. I, may observe here that the Court below erred in taking up the subsequent application first. It would have been appropriate for him to take the first application, pass the direction therein and dispose of the second application referring to the order already passed. In that case the anomaly giving rise to the present grievance of the Petitioner could have been avoided. 5. From the aforesaid analysis the position is clear that the Petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance with effect from the date of the application registered as Misc. Case No. 79 of 1982, that is, May, 1982. Shri S. Mishra (1) for the opposite party then submitted that the arrear dues work out to a substantial amount about Rs. 10,000/-, which the opposite party is not in a position to pay immediately.. He prays that reasonable time should be granted to the opposite patty to pay the amount in instalments. The prayer is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled to get from the opposite party interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/,. per month with effect from June, 1982. The prayer is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled to get from the opposite party interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/,. per month with effect from June, 1982. The arrear accrued due by the date shall be paid by the opposite party to the Petitioner in three instalments, the first instalment being payable by the 1st of May, 1988 and the remaining instalments by 1st of August, 1988 and 1st November, 1988 respectively. There will be no order for costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Allowed